Lincoln-Douglas Debates on moral relativism

Walk into any Barnes and Noble and you are bound to run into a book display celebrating the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth. Unfortunately, a book you will not find in that collection is Harry Jaffa’s Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, which was published fifty years ago. Jaffa was recently on Uncommon Knowledge and he talked about what originally drew him to him this debate. What Lincoln and Douglas are ultimately arguing about is whether morals are relative or absolute. Or to put it in Jaffa’s words, “Do the people make the moral law or does the moral law make the people?”

Take Douglas, for instance. His “popular sovereignty” argument is that slavery’s existence is simply a matter for the people in each state to vote up or down. And since the people's will is never unanimous, might or the majority makes right. This is just a variation of the doctrine of moral relativism which states that moral principles are a product of the people’s will. Thus morals are subjective and will vary from place to place which is why Douglas believes popular soveriengty is the solution to the slavery issue.

In contrast, Lincoln argued that the equality principle, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, is made by God, not man. The approval of slavery is a failure to live up to the moral law. This is a textbook presentation of moral absolutism.

What is especially interesting is how moral relativism is applied today. Cultural Liberals, who believe history is moving toward greater and greater freedom, usually presuppose moral relativism when arguing for their causes: abortion, gay marriage, etc. Yet they would think Lincoln, not Douglas, belongs in their pantheon of heroes. If the L-D Debates reveal anything, it is that such Progressives should reevaluate their first principles. The rock of moral absolutism can better secure human rights than the shifting sands of moral relativism.

Out of Town

I'm taking off for a week to get out of town so my blogging will have to be in hiatus until then.

Eastwood's Straw Men

Having just watched Gran Torino, I was surprised to find Eastwood taking another shot at the Catholic Church. The last one was Million Dollar Baby, which drew a lot of controversy over its message over euthanasia. In both films Eastwood plays a cantankerous old man who bullies a young, inexperienced priest. He always gets the better of the conversation, leaving the Priest slack-jawed.

If he means it as simply a ribbing, then the films would not have anti-Catholic animus I am suggesting. But in both movies he engages the priests in a serious conversation and at a crucial moment in the story. And both times Catholicism is depicted negatively.

In Million Dollar Baby Eastwood’s character, Frankie Dunn, has to decide whether he will euthanize a loved one (Hilary Swank’s character). He goes to the priest, Fr. Horvak, for advice. At this point the viewer might think the previous conversations were not to be taken seriously since Frankie sought Fr. Horvak and not the other way around. Moreover, he would expect Fr. Horvak, as a representative for Catholicism, to explain the Church’s teaching on euthanasia. Instead, he says, “Forget about God or heaven and hell. If you do this thing, you'll be lost. Somewhere so deep you'll never find yourself again.” A professed agnostic couldn’t have said it better himself. The implied standard is the autonomous individual and being “true to yourself.”

In light of this scene, I can see why Michael Medved argued that the film’s story is just a cover for a pro-euthanasia tract. The Catholic Church is the most visible and vocal opponent of euthanasia so putting a priest in such a conversation and then distorting the Church’s teaching is one way to get people to come around on the issue; A dishonest way, but a way nevertheless.

Gran Torino, Eastwood’s most recent film, deals with gang violence. He plays Walt Kowalski, an old man in a crime infested neighborhood who decides to do something about the violence. Having made fun of the priest, Father Janovich, the entire film, Walt wants to go to confession with him before he faces the local gang. Again, the viewer might think the earlier conversations between the two did not really reflect Walt’s intentions since he is willing to confess to Fr. Janovich now. But his confession turns out to be a big joke as his list of sins is so insignificant that Fr. Janovich becomes disgusted with him. During the entire film, Janovich has suspected Walt has been hiding something and he is right about that. Walt killed an unarmed man in the Korean War and received a medal for it. The guilt has plagued him ever since. Unfortunately, he confesses that to Thao, the boy he is mentoring, not Fr. Janovich. And the reason for that is obvious: he doesn’t take the “Padre” and his Church seriously. To add insult to injury, Eastwood puts these words in Fr. Janovich’s mouth at the end of the film: “Walt definitely had no problem calling it like he saw it. But he was right. I knew really nothing about life or death, until I got to know Walt... and boy, did I learn.” The young priest is taught how the world really works by the seasoned stoic. Humility is a virtue, but at the very least Eastwood could have depicted the Padre with some self-respect.

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.

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.

'Benign' Dictator trumps Democracy-for now

Dambisa Moyo was recently on Uncommon Knowledge to discuss her new book titled Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. Her thesis is foreign aid creates dependency on an international level just like welfare programs do on a national level. If that wasn’t controversial enough, she also argues in the book that it might take a ‘benign dictator’ to create real reforms in Africa. This isn’t to say she is anti-democratic; only that democracy would have to wait until some there is a basic level of security and prosperity there. Peter Robinson discusses these types of questions in another show: "Is democracy—that is, free elections—to be desired at all times for all nations? Or are nations more successful when they establish the rule of law, property rights, and other constitutional liberties first?

In an article in Newsweek today, Fareed Zakaria says Moyo’s argument is being tested in Rwanda. President Paul Kagame was elected, but rules like an authoritarian. Yet, Zakaria says,

It is now stable, well ordered, and being rebuilt every month. Average
incomes have increased by 30 percent. The country has a na-tional health-care
system, burgeoning countrywide education, and much less corruption than is usual
in Africa. It is becoming increasingly attractive to corporations and tourists.
In 2007, Fortune published an article titled "Why CEOs Love Rwanda." The heads
of Starbucks, Google, and Costco are among the country's supporters.

Moyo’s aid argument is also being implemented. Kagame stresses ‘self-reliance’ and he has cut down the aid Rwanda receives from 85 to 50% of the government’s budget.
This isn’t to say Kagame’s reign has been perfect. Zakaria says he ignores international advice, which is a big no-no in our post-Dubya world. That aside, Kagame’s rule raises the question of whether democracy is a must under all circumstances.

Is it crowded in here?

The popular rationale for birth control and abortion is they empower women. But the more insidious argument is they are means for population control. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, justified these things on the grounds of eugenics: weeding out undesirables. Unfortunately, this is either unknown by the general populace or believed to be irrelevant to the contemporary debate on these issues. The thought process is that regardless of what Planned Parenthood’s origins might be, it is about women’s empowerment now.

However, in the last six months two high profile figures, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have resorted to population control arguments.

Here is Speaker Pelosi on birth control:

The family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in
terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health,
education, and some of those elements are to help the states meet their
financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the
contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

And Justice Ginsburg on abortion:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about
population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to
have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding
for abortion.

Hopefully, quotes like these will increase awareness about how Margaret Sanger’s policies are alive and well in the 21st century.