Lying for Life

Live Action is a Pro-Life group that went undercover to see what they could dig up about Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider. The Live Action actors pretended to be a pimp and prostitute as they asked the Planned Parenthood employee if she could help them obtain abortions for teenage prostitutes. Shockingly, the employee provides them with the information.

The debate in the broader community is whether this is an isolated case of a Planned Parenthood employee gone AWOL or just a typical day at the office at your local abortion provider. But there is an even more interesting argument going on within the Pro-Life movement about the means employed to obtain this information: Is lying a justifiable means to save the lives of the unborn? Is lying always wrong or are there exceptional cases in which it is justified? Academics have lined up on both sides of the issue:

A Moral Absolute

Robert George

Christopher Tollefsen

Carson Holloway

Admits of Exceptions

Peter Kreeft

Hadley Arkes

Joseph Bottum

Janet Smith

The debate reveals a tension between two necessary themes in any sound moral philosophy:

1) Good guys stick to their principles; bad guys violate them. If the good guys abandon their principles at the first sign of trouble, then there is no longer a clear line between right and wrong. This point is illustrated nicely in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. In the interrogation scene, the Joker tells Batman that he will force him to break whatever rule or moral code he lives by. To kill Batman is not enough; he must be corrupted. The Joker employs this same strategy with Harvey Dent. Batman understands this which is why he prevents Dent from torturing someone. Dent must be beyond reproach. The Joker ultimately succeeds in the case of Dent but fails when it comes to Gotham City as a whole. He thinks people are principled as matter of convenience and will drop them when the going gets rough. The boat experiment in which two groups of people are given the choice to either kill or be killed is supposed to prove this point, but he turns out to be wrong. The people would rather die than commit such an evil deed.

2) Statesmanship requires latitude which absolutes hinder. Principles must be flexible for those who participate in the political arena. To rigidly hold onto abstract principles in such cases is doctrinaire, for it fails to take into account practical difficulties. This is not an endorsement of relativism because principles are not being denied altogether. It is just saying that theoretical principles must to be applied to concrete situations which requires the virtue of prudence. The prudential application of a principle might require it to be modified, adapted, or only partially realized in a given situation. Think of Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. His principled stand against the tyrant Henry VIII does not exclude his prudence when it comes to avoiding death. He is both a wise serpent and an innocent dove.

The Natural Law tradition is aware of this tension which is why it places moral precepts in either primary or secondary categories. Primary precepts are absolute and brook no exceptions. For example, murder, defined narrowly as the “deliberate taking of innocent human life” is always wrong. Secondary precepts are generally wrong, but admit of exceptions. Aquinas lists stealing as a secondary precept because private property is not absolute; the goods of the earth ultimately belong to mankind in common so emergencies could require a redistribution of goods.

What category does lying fall under? Is language more like God-given human life or the human invention of private property, with all its pliability? This is where the question lies.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Men today are more sensitive and likely to help their wives with the kids and housework. They have clearly changed from the patriarchal men who we see portrayed in Mad Men. We’ve gone from Don Draper to Ross and Chandler in Friends. (Or Jim from The Office for our current TV watchers.) Feminism and Political Correctness, both children of the Sexual Revolution, have made women’s lives better in this regard.

On the other hand, it has also given us Joey, or worse, his alter-ego, Tucker Max. The Sexual Revolution has to take the blame for him since his type isn’t possible without the Pill and the corresponding celebration of Libertinism. Mad Men shows us that Don Draper had such proclivities, but was restrained by the public shame such behavior would receive. Women’s lives today are much worse in this regard.

We live in a time in which men are told to be sensitive to be women's needs, while bombarding them with images which can only desensitive them.

Pomo Cons and Neocons: Making their peace w/ Big Gov’t

Distinguishing himself from mainstream American conservatism, Pomo Con Peter Lawler joins Neocons like David Brooks by arguing that safety nets such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are constitutional. In this post, he explains that while it might be “manly” to brush off the government’s help, such a position will not win elections.

Of course, a policy’s popularity does not mean it is necessarily constitutional. Or does it? Even the Originalist Scalia says he accepts the New Deal’s (and I suspect the Great Society’s) programs. He gives a three pronged criteria for why he accepts it, but not decisions like Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and Lawrence v. Texas:

1) plausible

2) popular

3) easy to apply

The 2^nd criterion is a variation of what Lawler mentioned. The New Deal and Great Society programs were popular at the time they were passed. Moreover, they were passed by the LEGISLATURE. On the other hand, the Roe and the subsequent cases were and still continue to be controversial decisions. The Culture War questions are not settled and can still be contested. But some form of a welfare state will be with us for the foreseeable future and it is time to make peace with that fact.

Mainstream Conservatives are not satisfied with turning back the clock 40 years; for them it is double or nothing, as the debate below reveals. Paul Ryan, a rising star in the Republican Party, is debating Neocon David Brooks on limited v. energetic government:

What B16 said (or didn’t say)

Media outlets have been abuzz that Pope Benedict has revised the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception by allowing it certain, extreme cases.

A closer look at the interview reveals he has done no such thing:

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The first part of his answer makes clear that he still sees the act as objectively disordered. His point is that while two acts might both be intrinsically evil, they are not equally so. If an agent decided to commit the lesser evil, then this would be a step in the right direction; nevertheless, it is still immoral.

Janet Smith’s bank heist analogy illustrates this point well:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Leo Strauss criticized Thomas Aquinas (and by logical extension, the Catholic Church) for supporting fixed moral principles. He believed such norms were too rigid and impractical for the messy, complicated world of human affairs. Pope Benedict's nuanced comments on contraception show an awareness of the need for principles which are BOTH fixed and flexible.

Love it or Leave it

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Rick Perry Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Governor Rick Perry and Jon Stewart debate the merits of federalism in this interview. Perry says the merit is that on controversial issues like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage each state can have their own laws. This allows people to leave the state which they disagree with.

Stewart replied the states are not monolithic so there is a minority who does not support the existing laws. For example, there are citizens in Texas who support the two issues mentioned above. Federalism leads to a Tyranny of the Majority which endangers basic rights.

But Stewart is begging the question. He is assuming these things are basic rights. The fact that people disagree about them is the reason why federalism is being proposed as a way to resolve the impasse. States are a “laboratories for democracy” which allow citizens to test a hypothesis.

Of course, Perry did not say that. Which makes you wonder how he will do if he does pursue a Presidential bid.

The Missing Link

Modern Liberal rhetoric on abortion has changed over the years. It used to be portrayed as a positive good, but is now depicted as a necessary evil, hence President Obama's characterization of it as "tragic." This is probably due to our country's slight shift in a pro-life direction. Professor Naomi Cahn, one of the two co-authors of the book Blue Families v. Red Families, recognizes this and so she wants to change the subject and talk about contraception instead. But isn't there a link between birth control and abortion? Does access to birth control increase abortion rates? If it increases abortion rates, then Modern Liberals would be endorsing a policy which would increase something which they themselves admit is "tragic."

Ross Douthat points out the same states (e.g. Massachusetts) which uses public funds to increase access to birth control also have higher abortion rates than states (e.g. Mississippi) which do not. Cahn's attempts to explain this away by saying the problem is states like Massachusetts have not gone far enough. They need further funding of sex ed and even easier access to birth control. Yet this seems highly implausible; the more likely explanation is abortion is necessary as a backup when contraception fails. This is why the abortion rates go up in states which permit easier access to birth control.

Whose Autonomy is it anyway?

Marquette University rescinded its offer to Dr. Jodi O'Brien to be the new Dean of the arts and sciences. The Catholic University decided not to hire O'Brien because she is a practicing lesbian who has published articles on homosexuality.

Thomas Kozinski has a Mercatornet Article in which he discusses the dilemma this presents for Libertarians who place "Autonomy" as their bedrock principle:

"....Jodi O’Brien has the individual right not to be discriminated against by any institution with regard to her preferred sexual lifestyle, then it stands to reason that Marquette University has an institutional right of autonomy. Surely the individuals who govern Marquette have the right to govern in a way that conforms to their own preferences, even if that means discriminating in hiring criteria... if Marquette does not have this right, why does Jodi O’Brien retain hers?"

In other words, the principle of Autonomy cannot resolve the 'conflict of wills.' If the individual will is sovereign, then how do we adjudicate disputes between them? Should we side with Marquette's President, Fr. Wild, who has a right to hire whomever he wants or Dr. Brien who has a right not be discriminated against? A principle other than Autonomy has to be invoked in order to resolve the conflict.

The Noble, the Dignified, and the just plain Autonomous

Tocqueville presents America as replacing Aristocratic Nobility with Democratic Dignity. James Poulos, Founding Editor of Postmodern Conservative, thinks its time for Nobility to make a comeback.

In this Bloggingheads episode, Poulos discusses how Conservatives make their case against many forms of biotechnology on the grounds of Human Dignity. He says the argument works well when it comes to designer babies, but loses steam when it comes to sexual morality. Nobility, he thinks, would be a better substitute. Poulos explains Miley Cyrus’ behavior last fall as being base and thus simply beneath her. This argument, he asserts, should be able to avoid the usual “Who are you to say…” yada-yada. It isn’t clear this is so as his interlocutor is unable to see a difference between Nobility and Dignity arguments. I’ll return to this point.

Poulos makes the argument for a switch again when it comes to the family. Conservatives, especially Christians, have been making arguments based on natural law (Dignity’s backdrop) when they should base it on “aristocratic nobility: pride in the unity of bloodline and virtu.” “Family identity and family accomplishment” should provide the standard for individual behavior.

Thus, Poulos, and Tocqueville for that matter, present Nobility and Dignity as butting heads. Yet is interesting to see Peter Lawler, who also blogs at Postmodern Conservative, portraying them as kin:

“It was with such Greek reflections in mind that the Roman word dignitas took on a basically aristocratic connotation. Dignity is a worthiness or virtue that must be earned, and the dignified man is someone exceptional who attains distinction by his inner strength of character. Dignitas is a self-contained serenity, a kind of solid immobility that cannot be affected by worldly fortunes. For the Stoics, and especially for Cicero, dignity is democratic in the sense that it does not depend on social status; it is within reach of everyone from the slave (Epictetus) to the emperor (Marcus Aurelius). Dignity refers to the rational life possible for us all, but it is really characteristic only of the rare human being who is genuinely devoted to living according to reason.”

It might be that Poulos is not against Dignity per say, but the simply the Christian or Democratic understanding of it. Tocqueville believed Christianity set up Democracy and were linked an in opposition to Pagan Aristocracy:

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”

Whether it is Classical Nobility or Christian Dignity, POMO Cons of all stripes do not want to see Cultural Libertarian’s ‘Autonomy’ crowned King. Stephen Pinker, who Lawler is responding to in the article cited above, says “informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice.” Bedrock? More like shifting sand. But moving on…

This common cause between Classical and Christian concerns can be found in the President’s Council for Bioethics which was disbanded by Obama last fall. Lawler points out the different nuances of the two approaches. The Classical concern is with “living well in the acceptance of necessity” or what I would call the ‘life within limits’ approach. A life well lived is one which operates within boundaries, which is why the Classical thinker also aligns with the Christian in the broader Culture Wars. The Christian is more interested with the “denial of equal treatment to the disabled or otherwise “unfit,” murderous eugenics, abortion, and the scientific destruction of human embryos.” Any of these actions are considered intrinsically evil, regardless of its frequency or circumstance.

Lawler says the two views are the “egalitarian and inegalitarian dimensions” of Human Dignity. I would add the Christian is concerned with individual acts while the Classical thinker is interested in life as a whole. The difference emerges because Divine Revelation brings into focus what appears blurry to unaided Reason. Revelation, like Death it seems, has a way of concentrating the mind.

Euripides on Elvis

I have never understood The Bacchae by Euripides and the various interpretations of it have rung hollow. With that in mind, I was surprised to find myself nodding in agreement over Robert Reilly's take on the play:

Euripides and the Classical Greeks, from whom our Founders learned, knew that Eros is not a plaything. In The Bacchae, Euripides showed exactly how unsafe sex is when disconnected from the moral order. When Dionysus visits Thebes, he entices King Penthius to view secretly the women dancing naked on the mountainside in Dionysian revelries. Because Penthius succumbs to his desire to see "their wild obscenities," the political order is toppled, and the queen mother, Agave, one of the bacchants, ends up with the severed head of her son Penthius in her lap -- an eerie premonition of abortion.

The lesson is clear: Once Eros is released from the bonds of family, Dionysian passions can possess the soul. Giving in to them is a form of madness because erotic desire is not directed toward any end that can satisfy it. It is insatiable.

Reilly then applies this reading to an indictment on pornography.
I would link Reilly’s argument to Carson Holloway’s critique of pop music. The logic behind such music, e.g. Rock N’Roll & Rap, can traced back to Rousseau and Nietzsche who argued IN FAVOR OF Dionysian 'madness' i.e. music should indulge and even inflame one’s passions. What was criticized by Euripides and Plato is encouraged by the late Modern thinkers and is accepted as a matter of course by us today.
Elvis, a symbol of the Sex, Drugs, and Rock N’Roll since the 60’s, might vindicate Euripides on this point. Like King Penthius, his desire for the Bacchic frenzy led to him to a bad end. While it might not qualify as Tragedy, it was rather pitiable finish.

Putting Locke in a Locke Box-or at least his image

David Brooks and Stephen Hayward are worried about the undue influence of guys like Limbaugh and Beck. Hayward writes, “We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.”

Peter Lawler, on the other hand, appears to take a broader look at the conservative movement as a whole:

In general, I wonder whether the Founders=Locke=good and the Progressives=Germans=bad narrative has run its course or needs a lot of supplementing at this point. A lot of younger conservatives see that part of our problem today is our promiscuous libertinism, and that it might be caused by our inability to keep Locke (or the spirit of calculation, contract, and consent) in a "Locke box." Increasingly, all of life is being turned over to a self-indulgent view of "autonomy," and that really does erode both a proper understanding of love and a manly spirit of self-government.

Anyone familiar with Claremont Review will recognize that Lawler is taking aim at the “narrative” which is popular there. For people at Claremont are more concerned with the growth of government than with the Culture Wars. Postmodern Conservatives see the latter problem as being more worrisome as every aspect of our lives becomes more and more Lockean.

Thomas G. West, who has popularized the Founders=Locke=good storyline, would and has contested Lawler’s portrayal of Locke. But I wonder if the Straussian distinction between intention and influence comes into play here. Regardless of Locke’s intention, his influence or role in the history of political philosophy is that his thought represents autonomous individualism. And it is the influence which has to be put into the ”Locke box.” (A similar argument could be made for Machiavelli and ‘Machiavellian’.)

The Opium Wars & Drug Legalization

MercatorNet has an excellent article outlining the history of the Chinese Opium Wars. What I want to focus on here is the last stage of the history. Due to the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858, China was forced to legalize the importation of opium which eventually led to the domestic production of the drug. Here is the result:

The prevalence of opium consumption in China skyrocketed in the 19th century,
from about 3 million opium smokers in the 1830s, to 15 million opium addicts by
1890, or about 3 percent of the population at the time. According to the Chinese
delegation to the International Opium Commission of Shanghai (1909), this
increased to about 21.5 million by 1906. Others put the number close to 40
million people in 1890, or about 10 percent of the population, growing to
unknown levels from there. According to official Chinese figures, opium
consumption affected 23.3 percent of the male adult population and 3.5 percent
of the female adult population of China in 1906. Other estimates ranged from 13
percent to 27 percent for the male adult population of the country. By any
estimate, China was consuming between 85 percent and 95 percent of global opium
supply at the beginning of the 20th century. Never before or since has the world
known a drug problem of this scale and intensity.

Drug Legalization led to a proliferation in its use. This seems to be a rather obvious fact and a reader might wonder why the author chose to belabor the point with so many statistics. It might be because this obvious fact is not so obvious to many today. I have come across several people who deny this claim, though it seems self-evident to me.

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

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.

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.