Left and Right
Two posts. First, Richard Chappell notes:
Some people judge that homosexuality is immoral, because they find it intuitively repugnant. They must also be aware that a few short decades ago people thought that interracial sex was immoral, on the same basis. This suggests that such intuitions provide a very flimsy basis for discrimination. Indeed, I find it completely baffling that homophobic conservatives fail to realize that they are the modern day equivalent of yesterday’s racist conservatives. Why are they not humbled by history? What makes them think that their disgust-based moral intuitions are any more reliable than their grandparents’ were?
There are two aspects to this, one fairly trivial. Mr Chappell goes from “Some people judge … because” to “homophobic conservatives fail … equivalent of yesterdays racist conservatives”. The “some people” goes from an adjectival description that (rightly) describes a small minority, while on the other hand to my reading “homophobic conservatives” is less likely to read as an even smaller subset (those in the “some people” category of before who are also conservative) to a notion that of a notion tarring essentially all conservatives as homophobic.
In the comment trail, Brandon argues for repugnance as a basis for other issues such as incest, which Mr Chappell finds acceptable. I offer two alternative tests:
Consider abmnemnopaedophilia, that is hiring young children (from poor family backgrounds) so that one might apply a drug which prevents the creation of long-term memory and then “use them” for the purposes of sexual enjoyment. That is, paying a family to give up their child for a night’s “entertainment” (with material renumeration) along with the application of a drug which prevents the child from having any memory (the next day) of nights events. This, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, should have no issue. That is, no lasting or measurable harm is done, the paedophile gets his “reward”, and the family gets some much needed financial assistance. It would seem that the primary argument against is repugnance (or perhaps virtue ethics).
Consider also the following sort of slave trafficking. In this sort of traffic young orphan girls from third world cities, who have been captured by street elements and sold locally into brothels might then re-acquired into first world, say European or American brothels. In those brothels, these girls are still sexual chattel … but they get better clothes, better food, work more reasonable hours and have a substantially improved lifespan and as well, the third world nation gets an influx of captial. Again a utilitarian can offer no complaint.
I would argue that both of these situations are “intuitively repugnant.” As well, one might be able to hoist reasoned arguments why they are bad, however there also utilitarian reasons why they are “good.” However one might ask those who would support either of the two test cases, “Why are you not humbled by history?” Why do you think your utility-based moral intuitions are reliable? Perhaps instead of proving a reason to doubt “repugnance” might we find instead utility a flimsy basis for ethical decision-making.
Mr Schraub asks:
A new ad out tries to force McCain into that question pro-lifers never want to answer: if abortion should be a crime, how much time should women who have them serve?
[…]
I’ve yet to hear a coherent justification (at least, one that isn’t nakedly paternalistic — e.g., women are irrational creatures controlled by their emotions, so they can’t be punished) for why abortion can be outlawed (as murder), but the murderers should get off scot-free. I suppose if someone doesn’t think abortion is murder, but still can come up with a reason for it to barred, they could dodge out of this, but the few arguments I’ve heard on those lines are also pretty paternalistic (it’s a serious decision, and we can’t know if you’re taking it seriously enough unless you’re willing to prove it somehow to the state).
A counter question that “pro-abortion proponents” never want to answer (or offer coherent justification) for is why they are for regulation (are paternalistic?) on virtually every other phase of life/issue, e.g., gun ownership, seat belts, hay rides, retirement, school regulation, and so on … but when it comes to killing the fetus brook no regulation or oversight at all. Paternalism per se is not a thing from which the left shirks … except in the case of abortion. The “pro-abortion” proponents also fail to offer “a coherent justification” for the notion that the pater, i.e., father, has any rights at all in this matter, which is unfortunate.
Now, the argument for regulation of abortion that I’ve made is not, I think, paternalistic (that is based on the idea that the state is wise but women are “irrational creatures”) but motivated instead by the idea that virtue is the path to happiness and that providing an environment in which virtue can flourish is one of the primary ends of the state. My argument was not singling out young women by any means, but was based on the notion that every serious ethical personal decision that affects society, i.e., marriage, divorce, abortion, and end-of-life issues might rightly be confronted by methods in the public square so that the society might be assured that the person(s) involved recognize that a serious ethical decision is being made. Men or women considering marriage often declaim they would climb any mountain or brave any raging torrent to be with their beloved. Aboriginal American cultures often had such barriers, fasting, vision-quest, or other feats to overcome which one might argue served this purpose. In modern Babylon, i.e., our culture, civil courts currently serve something of that purpose. Currently our courts have a limited set of tools, like prison, fines, and service. It seems likely if we considered the task of the courts to assign barriers to demonstrate one’s resolve, a larger set of tools might be assigned to their disposal, which could then be also used perhaps at a generically higher level, for those who don’t present their case in court.
That is basically a less mocking restatement of the “serious ethical decision” argument. It is one I’d argue for at a local level, so that if/when barriers would be set, they would be made at a micro-scale to be proportionate and be seen as reasonable to those setting them. However, in policy, it is one I don’t ascribe to on a national level. I’m currently of the opinion that these decision of abortion, euthenasia, divorce, marriage, and so on should all be made locally, at the village/precinct level. At the local level, one response to deciding to forego the regulations put up in these matters is that, you must face the set consequences … or move (preferably prior to breaking the law and facing said consequences).
Filed under: Abortion • Conservative • Culture • Ethics & Morality • Homosexuality • Liberal • Mark O. • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I’m not sure if I’m following your first argument, Mark. You note Chappell’s argument:
They must also be aware that a few short decades ago people thought that interracial sex was immoral, on the same basis.
Then go on to suggest:
Perhaps instead of proving a reason to doubt “repugnance” might we find instead utility a flimsy basis for ethical decision-making.
So, I think you agree (correct me if I’m wrong) that Chappell has a case that JUST repugnance is not a sufficient measure. It can be a clue, but it can also be mere cultural upbringing – which is sometimes (as in the case of interracial marriage) plainly wrong.
Now, I’m with you that “utility-based decision-making” has its problems, as well. So, why not something more ethically-based instead of letting either repugnance or utilitarianism be our guide? Or is that what you’re arguing?
It’s one of my problems with those who oppose gay marriage – they seem to do so based on repugnance which is sometimes based on their interpretation of a handful of questionable scriptures. But they don’t seem able to make an ethical case for opposition to gay marriage. Rather, “gay marriage is wrong because god says it is,” is the type of arguments we tend to get.
The problem with this is, of course, is:
1. God never said such
2. At best, there are a handful of verses that they take to MEAN that, but that hardly seems an ethical defense of their position.
What do you mean by way of alternative to repugnance-based decision making?
Dan,
?? Utilitarian is an ethical methodology. I’m not sure what your trying to ask.
It occurred to me after I’d written this, that I didn’t do a good job (or even a slapdash one like my response to Mr Schraub) of stating a positive point of view on where I think repugnance stands. That might be grist for another post, but in brief I think that repugnance is a cue. It’s a cue to (often) unstated assumptions we’ve gathered and ingrained from our cultural surroundings. As such, countering them should not be the default position, but instead we should examine them carefully (and perhaps respectfully).
This is to be held in distinction with utilitarian concerns, which I find a flimsier cue in general even than repugnance.
So, what I’m trying to ask, then, is:
What do you mean by way of alternative to repugnance-based decision making?
I agree that repugnance CAN be a cue. But it can also be cultural and therefore is not an entirely worthy cue. So, if not instinctive repugnance, then what?
Dan,
You’ve just pointed to the primary difference between liberal/progressive and conservative. Your (and the liberal/progressive) default response to a cultural cue is that it is wrong or not worthy. The conservative (and my) default is the reverse.
Origen, in writing on Scripture and hermeneutic, notes that when reading Scripture one will come across apparent discrepancies. These he instructs are put in there as a “wake up”, a call to the reader to pay attention and that there is something to study here.
Repugnance can be viewed in part that way. It is a cue that here is something which should be examined and not passed over lightly.
In the comments to the post linked above (and the post), repugnance about miscegenation was a cue to examine ideas on race. They found, rightly, that race is not an important distinctions. Therefore we should can try to work past our repugnance. And then today, we find that mixed-race marriages are no longer repugnant.
Many find homosexuality repugnant, cueing one to an examination of gender. Sex/Gender is a real distinction, not largely artificial like race. Additionally Scripture, for example, is unequivocally finds homosexual sexual activity sinful (see Gagnon). So the repugnance response is not so lightly dismissed.
Now, how that notion of sin reflects on your politics is different question. That I answer with locality, that I think questions of requirements for marriage should be left and dealt with at the precincts and villages level … not federal or state.
How that reflects within the Church, I think is a pastoral question, for we are all sinners (and of whom I am first) and just as my pastor/spiritual adviser is helping me deal with and confront my sin, so it should be done for my neighbor.
You’ve just pointed to the primary difference between liberal/progressive and conservative. Your (and the liberal/progressive) default response to a cultural cue is that it is wrong or not worthy.
Mark, seriously, seriously, PLEASE read what I’m actually writing. I said that repugnance CAN BE cultural and not totally trustworthy. I said that repugnance CAN be a cue, but it may not be every time. I think we are in agreement on this if you will actually read my words.
Do you or do you not agree with me that those who were/are repulsed by the notion of interracial marriage find it repugnant because of cultural upbringing and NOT because there is something wrong with interracial marriage?
I think that you agree with me that SOMETIMES, repugnance is not a reliable measure. Right?
Please, read my words and evaluate my position based on what I’ve actually said.
Am I on Candid Camera?
Additionally Scripture, for example, is unequivocally finds homosexual sexual activity sinful
That is YOUR (and the dominant) position on the 4-6 verses that might possibly deal with homosexuality in the Bible. But not everyone agrees with you or the majority.
Dan,
We both agree that sometimes repugnance is not reliable. PLEASE, read what I’m actually writing. I didn’t disagree with that. I just also noted that it more likely for a liberal/progressive to assume that if it’s cultural its more likely not trustworthy while the conservative takes the opposite point of view. Do you actually disagree with that, i.e., that conservatives are more likely than liberals to trust cultural mores and values.
I dunno. I haven’t gone into the issue in depth because it was all pretty much resolved before my time and haven’t gone into the literature and discussions. But I’d imagine that those who found it repugnant didn’t rest on that argument.
Dan,
4-6?! I think there are just a few more. But again, this is not an issue I’ve studied in depth as I am neither have pastoral responsibilities/calling nor gay (or are my children), I’ll refer you to the Gagnon book for more Scriptural study. But I’d guess he didn’t write 520 pages on just 4-6 verses. The few books I’ve read against the notion that homosexuality is sinful had absolutely execrable hermetical methodology, actually embarrassingly so.
Slightly off topic, I’ve heard recently suggestions that in Genesis 10, Ham’s crime against Noah was homosexual rape. What do you think of that? It was suggested as a reason for magnitude of the punishment.
It’s not in the text. It’s an extrabiblical guess or hunch. Take that for what it’s worth.
And yes, there are indeed only 4-6 verses in all of the Bible that even appear to deal with homosexuality. And I’ve read Gagnon and I’m not convinced by his arguments.
If you do research in it, you’ll find that the word “homosexual” only appears 1-3 times (in the letters of Paul), depending upon your translation. And those are questionable translations of a word that translators have not been able to agree upon.
There are two verses in the OT in Exodus (both saying “Man shall not lay with man,” and one which goes on to say, “you must kill these types of people.”) And then, there’s Romans 1.
All of that is off-topic, just wanted to let you know the reality of what the Bible does and doesn’t say about homosexuality.
We both agree that sometimes repugnance is not reliable. PLEASE, read what I’m actually writing.
I read what you wrote. You wrote, and I quote:
“You’ve just pointed to the primary difference between liberal/progressive and conservative. Your… default response to a cultural cue is that it is wrong or not worthy.”
You said my default response is that cultural cues are wrong and unworthy. I didn’t say that. I don’t think that. What you wrote was verifiably incorrect and quite opposite of my actual position (and the actual position of many you’d probably consider “liberal”).
I think they are quite often correct. Maybe even most of the time. It might sorta depend upon the culture. A racist, sexist, homophobic culture’s repugnancy tendencies might be less reliable than a loving, responsible culture.
My point was/is that they are not an inerrant source of ethical determination. That is why I asked, “If not repugnance as a measure of morality, then what?”
You also wrote:
Do you actually disagree with that, i.e., that conservatives are more likely than liberals to trust cultural mores and values.
It would depend. Yes, mostly I would disagree that many so-called conservatives are more likely to trust cultural mores and values than many so-called liberals.
For instance, I am repulsed by the targeting of children for violence and destruction. I find it repugnant. I think this tendency to find things repugnant is often a reflection of God’s Word that the bible says is written on our hearts.
I think (as do all my so-called liberal church members and friends) that it is always, always, always wrong to target children for death and pain. My repugnance helps validate (for me) that ethical standard.
But I have been in conversations on my blog with some so-called conservatives who’ve chosen to disagree with me. Yes, they say, USUALLY it is wrong to target children. But not always!
Wow. How can someone defend such a position?
Dan,
What Bible verses do you use to base your belief that homosexuality is OK with God?
I’d have to defer to Mark, as that is off-topic. If he’d like to have this conversation swing that way (so to speak), it’d have to be his call.
Dan,
What does progressive (the new word for liberal) vs conservative mean if it does not imply a higher appreciation for change for the former? How do you figure that arguing for SSM is an argument for less change?
If I amend my statement quoted above to:
That is what defines liberal/progressive vs conservative. The conservative is less sanguine about the prospects of “change” helping things and not just introducing new and different (and worse) problems.
Very pro-life, that.
On the targeting of children, as for defending such positions, don’t get me wrong here, I’m not going there. But I can explain it. It’s a matter of choosing what is seen as the lesser of evils. If one might stop the genocide slaughter of many (including children) by killing a smaller number children then the view is that the second choice is better.
There is also a common notion that we have more responsibilities to love, cherish and protect those closer to us. That is, it’s right/righteous for me to love and give more to my children then the children of a stranger and that I have more responsibilities toward my children than theirs. In that view, protecting my children vs the children of evil men may viewed as more important and if by “targeting those other children” evil might be halted … there is the justification.
And go ahead, talk about homosexuality and scripture in this forum. If it gets too hard to disambiguate the threads we’ll break it up tonight.
Off the top of my head: Genesis 10, Genesis 19, several instances in Leviticus, you note Exodus, Romans, Corinthians … and we’re already past 6. Also if you include homosexual relations in the definition of adultery (sex outside marriage) the list lengthens considerably quickly.
Genesis 10? Does not talk about homosexuality.
Genesis 19? Does not talk about homosexuality.
When I said Exodus, it was a slip. I meant Leviticus. Which has exactly two passages that can be construed as talking about homosexuality. Lev 18 and Lev 20 are the two places where it decries men laying with men.
A serious look at the Bible will turn up only a handful of verses (4-6) that seem to touch on homosexuality. If you want to lump gang rape (as in Sodom and Gomorrah), extramarital affairs and prostitution and general perversity into your definition of homosexuality, then you can find others. But then, homosexuality is not the same thing as gang rape, most reasonable people could agree.
On topic:
The liberal/progressive response to a cultural cue is (far) more often that it is wrong or not worthy.
By definition, a liberal is more willing to accept change. This is not the same as a de facto rejection of cultural cues.
And, again, I’d be willing to bet that in my case, I probably hew closer to many/most cultural cues than many “conservatives.”
We agree that targeting children is a wrong and we rightly find it repugnant UNTIL we find a good reason to do so, says so-called conservatives. Whereas my “liberal” friends say NO! It is always wrong to target children.
So, again, my original point was that we can’t cite “repugnance” as a verifiable accurate measure of what’s right and wrong – even though it is oftentimes right. I believe on this point, we are in agreement, right?
And I still want to know: If not “repugnance” as our ethical guideline, what do you advocate?
Dan,
As I mentioned above, with
Genesis 10(sorry my mistake) Genesis 9 some commentators view interpret “saw the nakedness” by Ham as a term akin to “knew his wife” … in part to explain the severity of his punishment.How is homosexuality not extra-marital in Scripture?
Dan,
Granted.
On the repugnance question, are you asking what where I draw my ethical guidelines?
and
I’m not clear what you’re talking about here. Do you have an example? Here’s one for you and your liberal friends.
With that will you still claim, “it is always wrong to target children.”
Dan,
On the “always wrong” notion. I’ve heard the only “absolute” in ethics is that it’s always wrong to “torture infants/children for pleasure.” FWIW
My reason for supporting gay marriage, in brief:
1. I grew up conservative – strongly so. I held to the traditional view on homosexuality for the first half of my life.
2. I grew away from that position not because I wanted to validate a sin, but because I came to believe the Bible did not support opposition to gay marriage and, in fact, I found support for gay marriage to be the more Godly position. To be honest, this was pretty much against my will, as I was STRONGLY opposed to the normalization of homosexuality.
3. Like many others, I assumed the Bible was chock full of verses opposing homosexuality. Why else would churches spend so much time and energy opposing it??
4. When challenged to actually study and see what the Bible has to say on the topic, I was quite surprised.
5. The Bible has nothing to say on marriage as it relates to our gay/lesbian friends – pro or con. Not one single word.
6. Jesus has nothing to say about homosexuality at all. Not one single word.
7. The OT, which I thought was replete with condemnations of homosexuality, didn’t. It has two verses. leviticus 18 and leviticus 20. Both say, “man shall not lie with man.” Chapter 20 goes on to say “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed”
8. This made me wonder two things,
a. “If we don’t believe the second half of that verse (kill ’em), why do we believe the first half?”
b. Could it be that they’re talking about something other than “just” homosexuality?
9. The two or three verses that people quote from Paul’s letters (not romans), all have some version of the greek words, “Malakoi” – which translate to “weak” or “soft” – and “Arsenokoitai,” – which translates to “abusers of themselves” or some equivelent. Hardly a strong case for opposition to homosexuality.
10. finally, Romans 1 – which at the time was my one stronghold in THE WHOLE Bible which I could point to and say, “Well, at least THIS passage condemns homosexuality!!” The pertinent verses in Romans says:
For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
For what it’s worth, the verses leading up to this passage are talking about worshiping false gods. Which sorta raised a red flag for me, “this seems out of context…”
In deeper study, I discovered that sexual immorality – boy prostitution, temple priestesses, etc – was part and parcel of the worship of other gods mentioned in those passages.
Furthermore, Romans talks about the men “abandoning natural relations,” and perhaps that verse more than any others (not that there are many others) started the change in my position. “Well,” said Dan, “for gay folk, ‘natural relations’ IS with the same gender…”
Ultimately it came down to the pure dearth of biblical support for such opposition to homosexuality and, even in the handful of verses that folk could point to, the case was not compelling and, in fact, supported folk pursuing “natural relations.”
As briefly as I can put it, that’s my reasoning for why this anti-homosexual kind of guy switched teams.
(And, for the record, I’m straight and married faithfully for 23 years next month. I say that NOT because I think there’s anything wrong with being gay, but so you know that I’m not merely making an argument to support a “favorite sin.”
When I changed my position, as far as I knew, I didn’t even know any gay folk – turns out I did, but my hostile attitude compelled them to stay in the closet around me. Sad. Even though I didn’t know at the time I had a hostile attitude, I realized I did and have since repented.)
Dan,
You do realize “natural” is about as reliable as “repugnance” for ethics. It is natural for the paedophile to have sex with little boys and girls. It is also sinful.
You asked:
I’m not clear what you’re talking about here [I had just stated that it is always wrong to target children for death and destruction]. Do you have an example?
Your original post was positing that the “repugnancy factor” can be a helpful guide in determing if something is wrong. A point with which I agreed (although I suggested it’s not a perfect guideline).
As an example, I offer the idea of killing children. We all – universally – find the notion repugnant. Around the world, in every religion and in NO religion, we are all agreed that this is a repugnant idea.
I’m suggesting it’s repugnant because it is always, always, always wrong to kill children. It’s always wrong to target their living areas for death and destruction. That anyone who claims that doing so is “good” if there is some “good reason” is wrong.
At least you had the decency to call it (in wartime) sometimes the lesser of two evils. But in so doing, you are at least calling it an evil.
I’m suggesting that even though killing children passes the repugnancy test (ie, we can tell it’s always wrong because it is repulsive), some still claim that it can be a good – some still claim that even God sometimes calls for people to do so.
So, I’m pointing to that to point out that yes, sometimes “liberals” are okay with change even though doing so is repugnant to others, but it’s just as true that sometimes “conservatives” do the same thing. And from where I sit, I don’t see that so-called conservatives have any greater handle on passing the repugnancy test than so-called liberals. That conservatives embrace the repugnant as often or perhaps more often than liberals do.
That’s how it seems to me.
Dan,
I think you’re being somewhat pedantic making a distinction between “calling it good” vs “the lesser of evils”. In the situation above, it would be good to get to the extermination camp as quickly as possible. Inasmuch as ethics is choosing “the good”, it would be good to attack the school. That is there is a “good” reason to target their living areas in the example above.
You really need some examples. Liberals frequently (proudly) speak of abolishing taboo and getting past our repugnance. Consider also the liberal love of transgressive art.
Conservatives … when? Not so much. You have been coy about coming forth with examples.
Oh, and you are factually wrong about
Moloch, as per Old Testament, is a religion which I believe was deemed abhorrent because it included child sacrifice. Chesterton notes that child sacrifice was a primary reason why Cato the Elder uttered his repeated clarion call of “Delenda Carthago est.” Now this might be 19th/early 20th century archeology, ascribing child sacrifice to Carthage … but the fact remains that child sacrifice has been part of world religions and cultures many times in the past. Sacrifice to Moloch, child sacrifice is the modern connection made to abortion, the sacrifice of our unborn on the altar of expedience.
Mark, I’m hoping you still find time to revisit your comments here, both in your post and in your comments.
This is the one where you did an especially poor job of interpreting my position, putting words in my mouth that I never said nor intended (saying that Dan “held that Jesus’ message… was one of class warfare…” and that I “prefer socialism in all cases,” for instance).
I’m hoping that you will still address these sorts of comments, for there were some pretty outrageous charges that I’ve pointed out were simply wrong. I’m hoping for some clarifying on your end, as you noted it was coming.
Thanks.
Oh, and you are factually wrong about
Around the world, in every religion and in NO religion, we are all agreed that this is a repugnant idea…
Clarification then: Every major modern religion and in those NOT religious, we find disgust in the notion of killing children.
Conservatives … when? Not so much. You have been coy about coming forth with examples.
The conservative notion that we ought to live responsibly and within our means has been rejected in favor of a 50 year oil and consumption orgy in the West.
The Christian and Human idea that we ought not target children is frequently discarded when it comes time for the US to make a decision that “those kids in Hiroshima” or “those kids in Somalia” or “those kids in Iraq,” etc, etc, are expendable for the Good of getting rid of terrorists, or Japs, or commies or whichever boogiemen these “conservatives” are foisting on us.
For two.
I can only think of one traditional value in my circles of so-called liberals that is being rejected as not moral and that is the opposition to gay marriage.
You have others?
Perhaps, for clarification, I should say that I’m not talking about libertines – who appear in liberal and conservative circles – but, for sake of this argument, what if we say The Religious Left?
Dan,
Still wrong. Just recently, in Palestine (and elsewhere the Middle East), there were cheers of applause from the Islamic Palestinians at the slaughter of children. Is it my apprehension that this is not the same as killing children as collateral damage in a war, but expressions of joy in killing children qua children (of the enemy).
One your two notions:
On the first, I think the notion that only liberals, or that is only a liberal notion that ecological considerations are part of our ethics, … is insulting and wrong. We disagree on methods, not aims. Furthermore, in this idea of conservation both sides are somewhat progressive. Prior ages consumed what they were able.
On the second, you are flat out wrong. As noted in my example above, targeting civilian areas (“kids” to you) is and always in the West been seen as a choice of evils. You agreed in my case above that sometimes this is a good. For this to be an example you need to demonstrate that it is seen as in independent good, i.e., like the Palestinians above.
Others?
Gay marriage, abortion, women and openly gay men in the Episcopate or other Sacramental offices, fetal experimentation, euthanasia … there are probably more but that’s off the top of my head.
You agreed in my case above that sometimes this is a good.
No. I absolutely did not. I agreed that for you to say that is an evil is correct. It IS an evil to target civilians. It is evil to call that evil a good.
Still wrong. Just recently, in Palestine (and elsewhere the Middle East), there were cheers of applause from the Islamic Palestinians at the slaughter of children.
It is not part of Islam to celebrate the slaughter of children. My point is that it IS NOT PART OF ANY MAJOR RELIGION find delight in killing children. That you can find some (too many, even) examples of people acting in opposition to their religion is not a rebuttal of that point.
After all, I can find Christians who rejoice in the torture of “terrorists” or the death of Islamic children or the notion nuking Iran or the worst racism is not an indicator that Christianity supports any of these horrors.
On the first, I think the notion that only liberals, or that is only a liberal notion that ecological considerations are part of our ethics, … is insulting and wrong. We disagree on methods, not aims.
And this is an important thing to note: “Liberals” aren’t opposed to these traditional values, as you have noted. “Liberals” sometimes have different methods in dealing with policies, but that is not a rejection of those values that you think it is.
You recognize (as do I) that just because “conservatives” SEEM to endorse horrible anti-American, anti-Christian points of view on some issues (environment, torture, killing civilians) does not mean that they are opposed to traditional values. I hope you would recognize that same reality in “liberals.”
Perhaps you even recognize, as I do, how inefficient these labels – liberal, conservative – are when it comes to talking about people and their positions. For instance, those on the Left (the ones I know) who support keeping abortion legal do so for conservative, LIBERTARIAN reasons – distrust of Big Gov’t interfering in individual citizen lives – not for LiberTINE reasons (“ahh, it’s all good. To each his own…”) We oppose this Iraq Invasions for traditionally liberal AND for traditionally conservative reasons – it’s Big Gov’t military adventurism, it’s against our defensive best interests, we ought not target civilians, it’s horribly anti-Christian, etc.
And so on. These labels can be somewhat useful on the theoretical level, but when it comes to every day life, people believe what they believe for a variety of reasons.
Returning to this:
As noted in my example above, targeting civilian areas (”kids” to you) is and always in the West been seen as a choice of evils. You agreed in my case above that sometimes this is a good.
I’m wondering how you keep consistently missing my point and, indeed, get my positions totally upside down and backwards from what I actually believe.
Perhaps, in this case, I’m misunderstanding you. Were you trying to say that I think “sometimes this is a good” to target civilians, given your example? Surely not, but that seems to be what you’re saying.
A clarification?
For my part, here is what I had said in response to your case test:
I’m suggesting it’s repugnant because it is always, always, always wrong to kill children. It’s always wrong to target their living areas for death and destruction. That anyone who claims that doing so is “good” if there is some “good reason” is wrong.
At least you had the decency to call it (in wartime) sometimes the lesser of two evils. But in so doing, you are at least calling it an evil.
I’m suggesting that even though killing children passes the repugnancy test (ie, we can tell it’s always wrong because it is repulsive), some still claim that it can be a good – some still claim that even God sometimes calls for people to do so.
I said that you were right to call attacking children “an evil.” I said that SOME people claim that it can be a good -that even God might call people to do so. But it was not my intent to suggest that it WAS a good. God forbid! It is and always has been/will be an evil to target children.
If you want to make the “lesser of two evils” case, good luck with that. At least it’s an honest position. But we ought never confuse it with being a moral good. The lesser of two evils still is an evil.
Could it be that you think the “lesser of two evils” is sometimes/always a good?
Dan,
Ethics. If you have a choice you choose the good. We always, even “evil people” do that. Deciding what the good is, is the essence of ethics. The choice you select is the one your ethical evaluation determines the good. So yes, I think if you choose to do a thing, you do so because it is the good. That’s a tautology. It is how “the good” is defined, by what we choose to do.
When you say, “If you want to make the “lesser of two evils” case, good luck with that. At least it’s an honest position. But we ought never confuse it with being a moral good. The lesser of two evils still is an evil.”I really don’t know what that means in terms of how I view ethics.
I think the view is substantially un-Christian in the following way. Satan offered to Christ in the desert the temptation to rule the nations of the world by force. He refused and allowed “lesser evils” including his allowing his death on the cross (and I would offer that allowing the crucifixion of an innocent man is an evil akin to “targeting children”). This evil turned out to be allowing an evil to permit a greater good, i.e., his resurrection and the “trampling of death by death.”
In the choice above, you choose the good, you attack and halt genocide as quickly as is humanly possible. This is the good choice, it is not evil!. The other choice, being paralyzed by the enemies one evil to prevent the greater is another far greater evil.
I don’t believe you. There are no parades. No dancing in the street. No celebrations by preachers, clerics, and lay people on the death of Islamic children. You find me an example of that.
And I will get back to your e-mail and later comment. I hope to do that tomorrow night. Mothers day intruded on my time today.
Dan,
Was God evil in deciding to act against Sodom and Gomorrah? Abram didn’t push it to 0 innocent lives and I think there is a lesson in that. Collateral damage is sometimes the good (or in your semantic wrangling … a necessary evil).
Tell me if you were the commander of the force described above and ordered the attack, with artillery and air support … do you think you would require penance, confession, and to seek God’s mercy and forgiveness for doing so, i.e., that you had done evil by your actions?
I’m curious are you a pacifist?
I would not, as a Christian, embrace an evil action, God willing. And killing children is always an evil.
When Jesus refused to accept Satan’s bargain, Satan didn’t offer him a choice between two evils, but rather between choosing to embrace an evil (bow down to him). He allowed, instead, the evil of his being crucified, but it was NOT Jesus committing the evil.
And so yes, when you find verses in the Bible where it suggests God wiping people out – killing children, I question that we ought to interpret that as a literal representation of God’s actions.
I’m especially wary of any verses that has God commanding us to do evil (God says, “Go in there and kill every last man, woman and male child. But spare the virgin girls for yourselves, to make them your wives…”) Those kinds of passages. I do not believe that those passages are to be taken literally as an accurate representation of how God acts.
Do you think God sometimes commands us to commit atrocities? Is there any limit to what God might command us to do? Rape? Infanticide? Genocide? Bestiality? Where does one draw the line?
I say that there are some actions that are always wrong. We may, as humans, feel that we’re backed into a corner and feel as if we have no choice but to commit the lesser of two evils, but we ought not fool ourselves into thinking that what we consider a lesser evil is somehow good.
God forbid.
It’s a different context altogether, but here’s what Paul had to say to the Corinthians when they were faced with a choice between evils:
Now indeed (then) it is, in any case, a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers.
-1 Cor. 6:7-8
They were in a lawsuit to avoid being cheated. Being cheated is a wrong and they ought not let the wrong-doer get away with such action, they logically reasoned.
Paul said, No. It is better to be cheated (one wrong) than to sue fellow Christians (the second wrong). Both actions were wrong, according to Paul, and he said, in other words, “Do not choose the lesser of two evils. It is better to be wronged than to embrace evil.”
Now don’t misunderstand my position: I fully embrace taking actions to stop wrong-doing, just not evil actions. That is where we, as Christians – and others concerned with living aright – draw the line. At embracing evil.
Further, I recognize that it is a hard life to embrace, living the Christian life. Sometimes, we may want to choose the lesser evil. I am sympathetic to that position and no doubt embrace it myself sometimes. Nonetheless, we ought not confuse embracing the evil with calling that lesser evil Good.
Ethics. If you have a choice you choose the good. We always, even “evil people” do that. Deciding what the good is, is the essence of ethics. The choice you select is the one your ethical evaluation determines the good.
Can you find even one bit of biblical support for embracing a lesser evil and calling it a Good?
And yes, I am a pacifist, of a sort (there’s a huge range of what pacifism means). I’m a Just Peacemaking Theory adherent, for something a bit more specific. Research/google “Glen Stassen” for more info, or check his book out of the library.
And yes, IF I were to embrace any type of evil, I would need to repent and confess my sin in humble contrition. Wouldn’t you?
Final attempt at clarification. You said:
In the choice above, you choose the good, you attack and halt genocide as quickly as is humanly possible. This is the good choice, it is not evil!. The other choice, being paralyzed by the enemies one evil to prevent the greater is another far greater evil.
Do not confuse the refusal to embrace a “lesser evil” with the decision to “do nothing.” There are never only two choices. For more biblical study on this point, you can research Walter Wink or the Mennonites on “The Third Way.”
The Third Way, as evidenced in Jesus’ teaching about turning the other cheek:
Not Fight. Not Flight (ie, doing nothing). But standing up to and facing down evil.
Letting the “enemy” dictate to us “You must embrace evil in order to fight us,” is to give the enemy power we need not give. We – like Jesus – can dictate our own terms of how we’ll fight.
Dan,
So in the hypothetical case I noted above, what is the third way? What would you do? The Camp and the killing. The enemy in a school … with children held on the top floor. Time is passing. Your call?
Yes. You turn your cheek. But do you turn your child’s cheek to be struck? Do you hold her down to be raped? How compliant are you?
What was the third way to confront confront Hitler?
So … apply that to WW II and Hitler’s expansionism.