Thursday, July 26, 2007
In the News
Did you guys see the news today? Ave Maria, the town in Florida, officially openned this week.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Harry Potter and the Ever-thickening Plot (and books)
Sylvia asked me what I thought of the latest Harry Potter movie. I wasn't exactly certain how she wanted me to answer, but I thought a post would not be amiss. So, anyway, if you aren't interested in Harry Potter, or if you are, and would rather not have the plot spoiled for you, I suggest you stop reading . . . .now.
Here be my conundrum. I made the mistake of reading Order of the Phoenix directly before I saw the movie, so my first viewing of what was essentially summer film fare was inevitably tainted by comparison with a richer, darker, much lengthier book. The book was not the most well-written work of fiction I've ever read, but it had a steady, mesmerizing pace that allowed the characters, particularly Harry, a lot of interior space to develop and deepen. In a nutshell, the driving force of Order of the Phoenix is not so much the plot, as it is the tale of Harry's motivations and paradigms beginning to shift and refocus. At any rate, the movie tried its best, but much of the plot was (understandably) reduced to vignettes and the whole thing had a more sleek, by-the-numbers feel. I've never been a stickler for retaining all the details of a book in a movie, film being a different medium and all, but I couldn't help but feel a little let down.
Then I saw the movie again a couple weeks later. It definitely improved. Standing apart from the book, the film is really great: the pacing is swift but decided, the characters economically but deftly drawn. The themes of justice, love, and friendship are brought out firmly but without overkill. I especially noted that the film's conclusion is actually stronger than that of the book, tying in Harry's struggle with the individualistic angst of youth with the overarching value of friendship and love (I can't say too much more without giving it away). Bill Gibron of www.popmatters.com he puts it quite nicely. "Those pining for all the meat in Rowling’s writing will probably be disappointed – its impossible to condense almost 800 pages into a little over 130," he writes. "But if they accept the film on its own terms, they will find a great deal to enjoy." I agree.
All in all, I'd recommend it as one of the better Potter films. Just allow yourself a few weeks in between book and movie, and be sure to give the movie a chance. It really does its best.
Here be my conundrum. I made the mistake of reading Order of the Phoenix directly before I saw the movie, so my first viewing of what was essentially summer film fare was inevitably tainted by comparison with a richer, darker, much lengthier book. The book was not the most well-written work of fiction I've ever read, but it had a steady, mesmerizing pace that allowed the characters, particularly Harry, a lot of interior space to develop and deepen. In a nutshell, the driving force of Order of the Phoenix is not so much the plot, as it is the tale of Harry's motivations and paradigms beginning to shift and refocus. At any rate, the movie tried its best, but much of the plot was (understandably) reduced to vignettes and the whole thing had a more sleek, by-the-numbers feel. I've never been a stickler for retaining all the details of a book in a movie, film being a different medium and all, but I couldn't help but feel a little let down.
Then I saw the movie again a couple weeks later. It definitely improved. Standing apart from the book, the film is really great: the pacing is swift but decided, the characters economically but deftly drawn. The themes of justice, love, and friendship are brought out firmly but without overkill. I especially noted that the film's conclusion is actually stronger than that of the book, tying in Harry's struggle with the individualistic angst of youth with the overarching value of friendship and love (I can't say too much more without giving it away). Bill Gibron of www.popmatters.com he puts it quite nicely. "Those pining for all the meat in Rowling’s writing will probably be disappointed – its impossible to condense almost 800 pages into a little over 130," he writes. "But if they accept the film on its own terms, they will find a great deal to enjoy." I agree.
All in all, I'd recommend it as one of the better Potter films. Just allow yourself a few weeks in between book and movie, and be sure to give the movie a chance. It really does its best.
Monday, July 23, 2007
PrayerLink
Ok, you guys, I think it is time to do a prayer link. Everyone respond in the comments with your prayer requests, so we can all pray for them! I will start . . .
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Concerning Good Government V
Well I have been working on this on and off today, but here goes nothing (again)....
Recall a few point from “Government II” and “III”. Man is a social creature who establishes human relationships both as ends and/or and as means. This, in conjunction with man’s other pursuits (such as truth – i.e. conformity of intellect to reality and communication to intellect), gives rise to culture and to custom.
A society is a collection of people comprising a network of real interpersonal relationships in which the limits of the society are defined in some relevant way. (It is not enough merely to have an agreement between two individuals to have a society. A society goes beyond this by involving a network of relationships.) Because men form the relationships that comprise a society as ends or as means to an end, a particular society is best defined by the shared end of those relationships. A particular family, cult, business, or fraternity can be seen as a network of relationships directed towards a shared end, and thus constitute a society.
It should be noted that it is not merely enough that there be a shared end, but there also generally has to be at least some commonality of means. A fraternity like a bowling club has a network of relationship built around the ends of “play” and “society.” Their means to this end is getting together every Tuesday to bowl. A large business pursues the common creation of livelihood by providing goods and services to a consumer. A religious denomination has an established structure of worship, or at least a common philosophy shaping their lifestyle, ordered to the worship of God. A family is complex in both its ends and its means, but I think that the rule holds true for the family. This similarity of ends and means for the active “membership” in the society
As long as men pursue things in common there will be disputes and disagreements. Some disputes (like on the nature of Good Government) do not “harm” either party, because the disputed matter (abstract truth, in this case) is not “possessed” by either party—i.e., resolving the dispute one way or another does not improve or expand the victor’s “claim” to anything. In other cases, Person X can be “hurt” by another Person Y, because what Person Y has done or is doing deprives or damages Person X’s claim to something. In this case, Person X at least may seek to have the dispute resolved in his favor. For this he seeks an outside party whom Person Y and Person X will both agree to obey, and they have the outside party judge the matter.
Often, to expedite justice or fairness (so that the common purpose can be better pursued), societies (be they fraternities, cults, families, businesses, etc.) will set up a process or processes to resolve these differences through the judgment of an authority. However, in order to ensure that justice and fairness will be done in the society, the authority making the judgment will need some compulsory power in case (1) one of the persons involved refuses to participate, or (2) people involved refuse to comply to the judgment. In fraternities and business, for example, an authority might have someone fired for not participating or complying.
I would distinguish two types of society: an “established” society that has a system for judging disputes of its members, and a “non-established” society that does not have a system for resolving disputes.
Now comes the question of civil societies. A civil society is the network of relationships through which the members of the network work to achieve the satisfaction of their basic, day-to-day needs and wants. (This definition can probably use some work). This society incorporates members who participate in many other societies, but the civil society is independent of those societies. Because man’s most basic and (hopefully) long term need is a place to live, and the person will often organize his live around where he lives or something immediately related to that, the civil society has throughout history been generally property and geographically based. After all, the people that one lived close to are the ones he is most likely to interact with and etc.
Because disagreements and disputes arise in civil society in which someone asserts damages through the acts (or lack thereof) of another, there is good cause for society to establish and authority to judge such cases. The authority is likely to need some means of compulsion in order to bring the issue to judgment even when one party does not want judgment on it, and to ensure that its judgment is effected.
It is my understanding that most libertarians would say that this is the limit of civil authorities right to rule – deciding such things as violations of the rights of others (generally summarized as the “life, liberty, and property”). I will consider this claim later.
However, because it is reasonable for a society to establish such an authority, the existence of such an authority in society is not necessarily a violation of natural law or natural rights.
Furthermore, because this authority labors to provide a service to the society, then he has a right to an award from society for services rendered. This might conceivably come from the individuals whose cases he judges, but I do not believe any system of this sort will not, in some circumstance (like the poor man who can’t pay legitimately suing a rich man) threaten impartiality. It is at least reasonable to believe that the authority would be more impartial if the pay was not coming from the individuals he judges. Thus I believe that a system of taxation, in which money is collected from members of society (provided that the tax is not depriving someone of their bare necessities) is a reasonable alternative that accords to the purpose of civil society – which is an institution founded on human nature – and is thus not contrary to natural law or natural rights.
Recall a few point from “Government II” and “III”. Man is a social creature who establishes human relationships both as ends and/or and as means. This, in conjunction with man’s other pursuits (such as truth – i.e. conformity of intellect to reality and communication to intellect), gives rise to culture and to custom.
A society is a collection of people comprising a network of real interpersonal relationships in which the limits of the society are defined in some relevant way. (It is not enough merely to have an agreement between two individuals to have a society. A society goes beyond this by involving a network of relationships.) Because men form the relationships that comprise a society as ends or as means to an end, a particular society is best defined by the shared end of those relationships. A particular family, cult, business, or fraternity can be seen as a network of relationships directed towards a shared end, and thus constitute a society.
It should be noted that it is not merely enough that there be a shared end, but there also generally has to be at least some commonality of means. A fraternity like a bowling club has a network of relationship built around the ends of “play” and “society.” Their means to this end is getting together every Tuesday to bowl. A large business pursues the common creation of livelihood by providing goods and services to a consumer. A religious denomination has an established structure of worship, or at least a common philosophy shaping their lifestyle, ordered to the worship of God. A family is complex in both its ends and its means, but I think that the rule holds true for the family. This similarity of ends and means for the active “membership” in the society
As long as men pursue things in common there will be disputes and disagreements. Some disputes (like on the nature of Good Government) do not “harm” either party, because the disputed matter (abstract truth, in this case) is not “possessed” by either party—i.e., resolving the dispute one way or another does not improve or expand the victor’s “claim” to anything. In other cases, Person X can be “hurt” by another Person Y, because what Person Y has done or is doing deprives or damages Person X’s claim to something. In this case, Person X at least may seek to have the dispute resolved in his favor. For this he seeks an outside party whom Person Y and Person X will both agree to obey, and they have the outside party judge the matter.
Often, to expedite justice or fairness (so that the common purpose can be better pursued), societies (be they fraternities, cults, families, businesses, etc.) will set up a process or processes to resolve these differences through the judgment of an authority. However, in order to ensure that justice and fairness will be done in the society, the authority making the judgment will need some compulsory power in case (1) one of the persons involved refuses to participate, or (2) people involved refuse to comply to the judgment. In fraternities and business, for example, an authority might have someone fired for not participating or complying.
I would distinguish two types of society: an “established” society that has a system for judging disputes of its members, and a “non-established” society that does not have a system for resolving disputes.
Now comes the question of civil societies. A civil society is the network of relationships through which the members of the network work to achieve the satisfaction of their basic, day-to-day needs and wants. (This definition can probably use some work). This society incorporates members who participate in many other societies, but the civil society is independent of those societies. Because man’s most basic and (hopefully) long term need is a place to live, and the person will often organize his live around where he lives or something immediately related to that, the civil society has throughout history been generally property and geographically based. After all, the people that one lived close to are the ones he is most likely to interact with and etc.
Because disagreements and disputes arise in civil society in which someone asserts damages through the acts (or lack thereof) of another, there is good cause for society to establish and authority to judge such cases. The authority is likely to need some means of compulsion in order to bring the issue to judgment even when one party does not want judgment on it, and to ensure that its judgment is effected.
It is my understanding that most libertarians would say that this is the limit of civil authorities right to rule – deciding such things as violations of the rights of others (generally summarized as the “life, liberty, and property”). I will consider this claim later.
However, because it is reasonable for a society to establish such an authority, the existence of such an authority in society is not necessarily a violation of natural law or natural rights.
Furthermore, because this authority labors to provide a service to the society, then he has a right to an award from society for services rendered. This might conceivably come from the individuals whose cases he judges, but I do not believe any system of this sort will not, in some circumstance (like the poor man who can’t pay legitimately suing a rich man) threaten impartiality. It is at least reasonable to believe that the authority would be more impartial if the pay was not coming from the individuals he judges. Thus I believe that a system of taxation, in which money is collected from members of society (provided that the tax is not depriving someone of their bare necessities) is a reasonable alternative that accords to the purpose of civil society – which is an institution founded on human nature – and is thus not contrary to natural law or natural rights.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Civil Justice and Divine Justice, Not Exclusive, But Not the Same
OK... back from a weeklong hiatus. Geoff: 1, loggerhead sea turtles: -1. ; )
Andy: "What are the tenets of civil justice, and what are the tenets of divine justice?"
The tenets of civil justice are that every man respect the earthly life, liberty and property of other men. The tenets of divine justice are that you respect all of the above, plus God, and the spiritual life of other men.
I assume no one here wants a theocracy: the state punishing every violation of the divine law as defined by the Church. But consider this: where do you draw a solid line on what sin to punish?
Does anyone really want the U.S. Council of Bishops in charge of a morality-based legal system, telling us we have a moral obligation to give jobs, housing, and "free" healthcare to people, and restricting (or banning) the production and sale of firearms? Could the theo-civil police punish you for lying about winning a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics? Should they impose a $250, or even a $20,000 fine for lying, if the theocrats decide that should be the punishment? How can you quantify spiritual transgressions in temporal terms? Should we try? I'm trying to be practical, here. If someone steals $500 from me, I want $500 back, plus the cost of lost business, if there is any. It's clear-cut. But how do you propose to punish a mortal sin on God's behalf?
If you legislate against things that do not violate life, liberty, and property of others, it's like a depiction of an ailing body politic. If the body politic (the sum of the individuals who comprise society) has an illness, (sin) you can reduce the symptoms (manifestation) of the illness by taking a Tylenol (laws backed up by force.) But you're not treating the root cause of the problem, which is the sin itself! Sin cannot be fought with force. Can you have a law against an ideology, and successfully prohibit it? That's what we're trying to do right now over in Iraq. To change an entire nation from Shariah law and warlords, to "democracy." They're democratic over in Palestine, now. But they elected the terrorist group Hamas to lead them. They were able to change the external structure of how people express what they believe, but not the underlying ideology of what they believe.
If some people want to lock other people up for committing a particular kind of mortal sin, hey, let them go for it. They can think they're acting as God's personal enforcers, trying to make other adults be good people. I harbor no such sentiments, indeed, no such delusions. I prefer the practical concept of neutralizing the manifest threat of those who manifestly hurt another person against said person's will. (Imprisoning rapists/murderers/thieves/robbers, etc.) I also believe in using only the minimum degree of force necessary to effect the neutralization of the threat. Temporal violations of temporal goods should be temporally punished. God will see to the rest.
Andy: "As far as I see, an (true) obligaton is a moral obligation whether it is imposed by God through human nature directly, or by more proximately by another man."
What moral obligation can be imposed by another man without the consent of both parties? If I shove a brick into your hands, and tell you to pay me $10 for it, or else, have I imposed a moral obligation on you? That's essentially what government does every day, in the form of taxation. It forces upon me something I would not have bought with my ten dollars. Whatever I would have bought would have been much more beneficial to myself and others, based on the tenets of the free market.
If someone is deliberately speeding toward you in a car, and you're in a car heading toward him, is he imposing a moral obligation on you to either turn to the left or the right to prevent yourself from being killed? No. You have the obligation to protect your life, period. His speeding toward you did not impose any new obligation on you. It is only an instance in which you must exercise prudence in order to fulfil the pre-existent obligation to protect your own life in certain situations.
God himself very rarely actively punishes infractions of the divine law in temporal matters. (Besides the natural law consequences.) He has punishments for immoral actions, after death, however. He legislated the divine law. He enforces it.
God gave us the power to protect what is ours. We have human nature, but it is not our human nature to do with whatever we want, like property. It is not human nature itself that we can protect by laws. You're not protecting human nature by punishing someone who committed theft against me. You're protecting other people's property, and through the action of protecting property, you are respecting their human nature, through their right to property.
Laws can either try to protect the earthly rights of men, or the divine rights of God. All of the former fall under the latter, but not all of the latter fall under the former. Human nature is God's, because he created it. It is ours, insofar as we share and partake in it. We do not own it. Hence, how can we prevent or punish a violation? God has a law, and he enforces it perfectly. We cannot enforce the whole of divine law. But we don't need to. We just need to take care of ourselves, and keep ourselves free enough to learn about God and teach his message to others.
Andy: Its root is necessarily the obligation to "do good and avoid evil" "for neighbor as for self", where this is understood in light of man's pursuits of the practical ends.
I think it is true that legislation should be for practical ends. But many people seem to think a law against things done by two consenting parties is a practical end. Is it a "practical" end to legislate against sinful behavior between consenting people? Behavior that does not manifestly harm others? Because if that is truly the case, we can make laws that call for the burning of heretics like Protestants. Their false teachings are leading people to Hell every day. If the practical application of law is to "make people good," rather than "allow people to be good, in an environment free from force, fraud and coercion," then let's burn all the heretics. Civil authorities once did burn heretics, following this logic. Why did they stop?
Andy: "What are the tenets of civil justice, and what are the tenets of divine justice?"
The tenets of civil justice are that every man respect the earthly life, liberty and property of other men. The tenets of divine justice are that you respect all of the above, plus God, and the spiritual life of other men.
I assume no one here wants a theocracy: the state punishing every violation of the divine law as defined by the Church. But consider this: where do you draw a solid line on what sin to punish?
Does anyone really want the U.S. Council of Bishops in charge of a morality-based legal system, telling us we have a moral obligation to give jobs, housing, and "free" healthcare to people, and restricting (or banning) the production and sale of firearms? Could the theo-civil police punish you for lying about winning a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics? Should they impose a $250, or even a $20,000 fine for lying, if the theocrats decide that should be the punishment? How can you quantify spiritual transgressions in temporal terms? Should we try? I'm trying to be practical, here. If someone steals $500 from me, I want $500 back, plus the cost of lost business, if there is any. It's clear-cut. But how do you propose to punish a mortal sin on God's behalf?
If you legislate against things that do not violate life, liberty, and property of others, it's like a depiction of an ailing body politic. If the body politic (the sum of the individuals who comprise society) has an illness, (sin) you can reduce the symptoms (manifestation) of the illness by taking a Tylenol (laws backed up by force.) But you're not treating the root cause of the problem, which is the sin itself! Sin cannot be fought with force. Can you have a law against an ideology, and successfully prohibit it? That's what we're trying to do right now over in Iraq. To change an entire nation from Shariah law and warlords, to "democracy." They're democratic over in Palestine, now. But they elected the terrorist group Hamas to lead them. They were able to change the external structure of how people express what they believe, but not the underlying ideology of what they believe.
If some people want to lock other people up for committing a particular kind of mortal sin, hey, let them go for it. They can think they're acting as God's personal enforcers, trying to make other adults be good people. I harbor no such sentiments, indeed, no such delusions. I prefer the practical concept of neutralizing the manifest threat of those who manifestly hurt another person against said person's will. (Imprisoning rapists/murderers/thieves/robbers, etc.) I also believe in using only the minimum degree of force necessary to effect the neutralization of the threat. Temporal violations of temporal goods should be temporally punished. God will see to the rest.
Andy: "As far as I see, an (true) obligaton is a moral obligation whether it is imposed by God through human nature directly, or by more proximately by another man."
What moral obligation can be imposed by another man without the consent of both parties? If I shove a brick into your hands, and tell you to pay me $10 for it, or else, have I imposed a moral obligation on you? That's essentially what government does every day, in the form of taxation. It forces upon me something I would not have bought with my ten dollars. Whatever I would have bought would have been much more beneficial to myself and others, based on the tenets of the free market.
If someone is deliberately speeding toward you in a car, and you're in a car heading toward him, is he imposing a moral obligation on you to either turn to the left or the right to prevent yourself from being killed? No. You have the obligation to protect your life, period. His speeding toward you did not impose any new obligation on you. It is only an instance in which you must exercise prudence in order to fulfil the pre-existent obligation to protect your own life in certain situations.
God himself very rarely actively punishes infractions of the divine law in temporal matters. (Besides the natural law consequences.) He has punishments for immoral actions, after death, however. He legislated the divine law. He enforces it.
God gave us the power to protect what is ours. We have human nature, but it is not our human nature to do with whatever we want, like property. It is not human nature itself that we can protect by laws. You're not protecting human nature by punishing someone who committed theft against me. You're protecting other people's property, and through the action of protecting property, you are respecting their human nature, through their right to property.
Laws can either try to protect the earthly rights of men, or the divine rights of God. All of the former fall under the latter, but not all of the latter fall under the former. Human nature is God's, because he created it. It is ours, insofar as we share and partake in it. We do not own it. Hence, how can we prevent or punish a violation? God has a law, and he enforces it perfectly. We cannot enforce the whole of divine law. But we don't need to. We just need to take care of ourselves, and keep ourselves free enough to learn about God and teach his message to others.
Andy: Its root is necessarily the obligation to "do good and avoid evil" "for neighbor as for self", where this is understood in light of man's pursuits of the practical ends.
I think it is true that legislation should be for practical ends. But many people seem to think a law against things done by two consenting parties is a practical end. Is it a "practical" end to legislate against sinful behavior between consenting people? Behavior that does not manifestly harm others? Because if that is truly the case, we can make laws that call for the burning of heretics like Protestants. Their false teachings are leading people to Hell every day. If the practical application of law is to "make people good," rather than "allow people to be good, in an environment free from force, fraud and coercion," then let's burn all the heretics. Civil authorities once did burn heretics, following this logic. Why did they stop?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Updated Blog
Hello everyone, not to break up any continuing conversations, but . . .
Ladies and gentlemen, I have revamped my personal blog! (finally)
This time, I promise to blog my heart out.
www.thebarrelphilosopher.blogspot.com
Check it out.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have revamped my personal blog! (finally)
This time, I promise to blog my heart out.
www.thebarrelphilosopher.blogspot.com
Check it out.
Descartes In Love
This was an idea some of us in St. Catherine's had one night as we celebrated Mardi Gras. We were taking Modern Philosophy with Mr. Brown at the time, and we thought Descartes would have been much happier if he just got a life. We always meant to write a skit about it, but between theses, boyfriends, homework, and dancing it never happened. This is my attempt.
DESCARTES IN LOVE
Descartes is sitting at a desk, writing*
Descartes: *reading as he scribbles* Several years have now passed since I first realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them. And thus I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences. But the task seemed enormous, and I was waiting until I reached a point in my life that was so timely that no more suitable time for undertaking these plans of action would come to pass. For this reason I procrastinated for so long that I would henceforth be at fault, were I to waste the time that remains for carrying out the project by brooding over it. Accordingly, I have today suitably freed my mind of all cares, secured for myself a period of leisurely tranquility, and am withdrawing into solitude. At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of all of my opinions. Sighs with satisfaction* Well, that is a good start.
(There is a knock at the door. Hobbes enters)
Hobbes: Hey Rene, what’s up? *sits down* Am I interrupting anything?
Descartes: *very annoyed* Just philosophical history.
Hobbes: Haha. I wish! Rene, it is time you and I had a talk. For the past few months all you have been doing is sitting by the fire, in your bathrobe, staring into space, or brooding at little blobs of melted wax. You need a girl.
Descartes: A girl? Right now I’m not even sure if you or I exist, and you want to make my life even more complicated? Nothing makes men (if they exist) lose their rationality more quickly than exposure to women (if they exist). I think therefore I am—if I stop thinking, I’m toast! *Descartes is hyperventilating at this point*
Hobbes: *unimpressed* Right. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Forget about girls for the moment, this is more urgent—what you need right now is a drink or two…or five.
Descartes: A drink? A drink? Can a mind drink? Why do I feel thirst? Is it evidence of a commingling of body and mind? *keeps dithering as Hobbes leads him out*
Scene 2: A bar
(Enter Des. And Hobbes. Des. Is still dithering.)
Des:…These sensations seem to precede an act of the will.. A man suffering from dropsy (if it exists) experiences a dryness of throat, but though his body tells him to drink, this will just make it worse. And what does this tell me about God…?
(A girl wanders by, and drops a hankie by Descarte’s foot. Descartes, still talking, abstractly picks it up, and hands it to her, and looks at her. Both stare like deer before a semi. She giggles. Silence. She walks away. Descartes doesn’t say anything.)
*The Descartes x-ray cam*--
Descartes’ Animal spirits: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!! (They spontaneously start to tango. The pineal gland gyrates wildly.)
Hobbes: Renee…Renee. (He waves a hand in front of Descartes’ unblinking gaze. He goes to the bar, where the bartender is talking to a girl, nursing some pink chick drink.)
Meanwhile:
Descartes’ Meditation 1: Descartes soliliquizes: Did I dream her? I taste the sweetness of honey, I smell the fragrance of flowers, I saw her beautiful white skin and chestnut hair. My heart has melted like wax. I feel the same, but I don’t feel like myself anymore. I might be dreaming, but I like this dream! Who cares if I’m awake or not! I feel like a new man. I actually want to stop talking and do something! (End of Meditation 1)
Meanwhile…
Nietzsche, who is tending bar: …and so Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and says, “God is dead!”
Hobbes: A double whiskey, please. Nietzsche: And you sir, are you a camel, laden with the knowledge of right and wrong, or are you a lion, or a child?
Hobbes: Is this some weird way of asking for my I.D.?
Nietzsche: (looks at him like he’s a specimen, and says icily) This is the religion of the future. Zarathustra has spoken, and God is dead.
Hobbes: Now how could he possibly know that? Did he come into a little money from being in God’s will? Or did God simply tell him so Himself, from beyond the grave? Or did He have His lawyers notify him?
Nietzsche: (aside) Definitely a camel. (To Hobbes) Nevertheless, I must introduce you to Zarathustra. Perhaps he can awaken some embers of life in you. (walks away)
Hobbes: (to the woman at the bar) Have we met? (smiles winningly) My name is Hobbes.
Woman: Look buster, I don’t know who you are, but I’ve had it up to here with your kind. I know men, and I don’t want to have anything to do with you. I’m a liberated woman, and am not going to be your newest accessory. Do you know what you are?…You’re nasty! And brutish! And…and, short!
Hobbes: (is visibly crushed) You really think I’m short? (attempts to stand up straighter)
Woman: Agggh! (She storms away)
Hobbes: Nasty, brutish, and short? Renee might be right about women. But you know what? that’s kind of a catchy phrase…Nasty, brutish, and short… I’ll have to remember it.
Nietzsche: (He comes back in, talking and leading someone who is not there, and then speaks to the air beside him) Zarathustra, speak to this man! Enlighten his ignorance. (He acts as if listening to something interesting)
Hobbes: You know, I hate to break up this mutual enlightenment thing, but my friend over there has had a shock and he really needs his whiskey.
Nietzsche: Zarathustra, could you pour this dimwit a whiskey while I go speak those customers over there? (walks away)
Hobbes is left by himself. He looks left and right surruptitiously, and grabs a bottle of whiskey. Takes a shot, then another.) Thank you, Zarathustra--(elaborate bow, and then returns to Descartes.)
Hobbes: Rene, forget what I said about getting a girl. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Rene, am I really…short?
Descartes: Did I dream her, or is she real?
Hobbes: (sarcastically) Just walk away, Renee!
Descartes: (To the space the girl formerly occupied) But I can’t live live with or without you!
Hobbes: ( In a last ditch effort) Return to me!
Descartes: Oh, but when love comes first, heaven is a place on earth!
Hobbes: Mamma mia…here we go again.
Scene 3--Still in a bar--
Descartes approaches the girl—
Descartes: Hello, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rene Descartes, and I’m a philosopher.
Girl: *giggles* Pleased to meet you. My name is Fizzie, and I’m single.
Descartes: So am I….Fizzie, I’m tired of sitting by the fire alone. Will you marry me?
Fizzie:*squeals* Yes! But wait, how will you support our family? You are a philosopher.
Descartes: Well actually, I’ve decided to leave that all behind and write philosophical romance novels.
Fizzie: Oh! Then, yes!
Scene 4:
*Hobbes is at the bar, scribbling away* Hah! I wonder if anyone will ever believe this stuff.
*Inside the Descartes home, the scene resembles Sunday Mass at St. John’s. Children run hither and thither, while Descartes sits at his typewriter trying to finish his novel*
Descartes: And then Xanthippe responded, Socrates, you know that I love you passionately, but I don’t know if I can marry you, for I have seen a dark future before you in the entrails of this beast. You cannot escape treachery and poison. But noble Socrates replied, I must show the world the way out of the cave, even if it costs me my life and free meals in the town square…--Kids, keep it down, please!
Fizzie: Ren darling, your dinner is getting cold!
Descartes: *sighs to himself* How could I have ever doubted? It’s all too real!
Finis
DESCARTES IN LOVE
Descartes is sitting at a desk, writing*
Descartes: *reading as he scribbles* Several years have now passed since I first realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them. And thus I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences. But the task seemed enormous, and I was waiting until I reached a point in my life that was so timely that no more suitable time for undertaking these plans of action would come to pass. For this reason I procrastinated for so long that I would henceforth be at fault, were I to waste the time that remains for carrying out the project by brooding over it. Accordingly, I have today suitably freed my mind of all cares, secured for myself a period of leisurely tranquility, and am withdrawing into solitude. At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of all of my opinions. Sighs with satisfaction* Well, that is a good start.
(There is a knock at the door. Hobbes enters)
Hobbes: Hey Rene, what’s up? *sits down* Am I interrupting anything?
Descartes: *very annoyed* Just philosophical history.
Hobbes: Haha. I wish! Rene, it is time you and I had a talk. For the past few months all you have been doing is sitting by the fire, in your bathrobe, staring into space, or brooding at little blobs of melted wax. You need a girl.
Descartes: A girl? Right now I’m not even sure if you or I exist, and you want to make my life even more complicated? Nothing makes men (if they exist) lose their rationality more quickly than exposure to women (if they exist). I think therefore I am—if I stop thinking, I’m toast! *Descartes is hyperventilating at this point*
Hobbes: *unimpressed* Right. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Forget about girls for the moment, this is more urgent—what you need right now is a drink or two…or five.
Descartes: A drink? A drink? Can a mind drink? Why do I feel thirst? Is it evidence of a commingling of body and mind? *keeps dithering as Hobbes leads him out*
Scene 2: A bar
(Enter Des. And Hobbes. Des. Is still dithering.)
Des:…These sensations seem to precede an act of the will.. A man suffering from dropsy (if it exists) experiences a dryness of throat, but though his body tells him to drink, this will just make it worse. And what does this tell me about God…?
(A girl wanders by, and drops a hankie by Descarte’s foot. Descartes, still talking, abstractly picks it up, and hands it to her, and looks at her. Both stare like deer before a semi. She giggles. Silence. She walks away. Descartes doesn’t say anything.)
*The Descartes x-ray cam*--
Descartes’ Animal spirits: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!! (They spontaneously start to tango. The pineal gland gyrates wildly.)
Hobbes: Renee…Renee. (He waves a hand in front of Descartes’ unblinking gaze. He goes to the bar, where the bartender is talking to a girl, nursing some pink chick drink.)
Meanwhile:
Descartes’ Meditation 1: Descartes soliliquizes: Did I dream her? I taste the sweetness of honey, I smell the fragrance of flowers, I saw her beautiful white skin and chestnut hair. My heart has melted like wax. I feel the same, but I don’t feel like myself anymore. I might be dreaming, but I like this dream! Who cares if I’m awake or not! I feel like a new man. I actually want to stop talking and do something! (End of Meditation 1)
Meanwhile…
Nietzsche, who is tending bar: …and so Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and says, “God is dead!”
Hobbes: A double whiskey, please. Nietzsche: And you sir, are you a camel, laden with the knowledge of right and wrong, or are you a lion, or a child?
Hobbes: Is this some weird way of asking for my I.D.?
Nietzsche: (looks at him like he’s a specimen, and says icily) This is the religion of the future. Zarathustra has spoken, and God is dead.
Hobbes: Now how could he possibly know that? Did he come into a little money from being in God’s will? Or did God simply tell him so Himself, from beyond the grave? Or did He have His lawyers notify him?
Nietzsche: (aside) Definitely a camel. (To Hobbes) Nevertheless, I must introduce you to Zarathustra. Perhaps he can awaken some embers of life in you. (walks away)
Hobbes: (to the woman at the bar) Have we met? (smiles winningly) My name is Hobbes.
Woman: Look buster, I don’t know who you are, but I’ve had it up to here with your kind. I know men, and I don’t want to have anything to do with you. I’m a liberated woman, and am not going to be your newest accessory. Do you know what you are?…You’re nasty! And brutish! And…and, short!
Hobbes: (is visibly crushed) You really think I’m short? (attempts to stand up straighter)
Woman: Agggh! (She storms away)
Hobbes: Nasty, brutish, and short? Renee might be right about women. But you know what? that’s kind of a catchy phrase…Nasty, brutish, and short… I’ll have to remember it.
Nietzsche: (He comes back in, talking and leading someone who is not there, and then speaks to the air beside him) Zarathustra, speak to this man! Enlighten his ignorance. (He acts as if listening to something interesting)
Hobbes: You know, I hate to break up this mutual enlightenment thing, but my friend over there has had a shock and he really needs his whiskey.
Nietzsche: Zarathustra, could you pour this dimwit a whiskey while I go speak those customers over there? (walks away)
Hobbes is left by himself. He looks left and right surruptitiously, and grabs a bottle of whiskey. Takes a shot, then another.) Thank you, Zarathustra--(elaborate bow, and then returns to Descartes.)
Hobbes: Rene, forget what I said about getting a girl. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Rene, am I really…short?
Descartes: Did I dream her, or is she real?
Hobbes: (sarcastically) Just walk away, Renee!
Descartes: (To the space the girl formerly occupied) But I can’t live live with or without you!
Hobbes: ( In a last ditch effort) Return to me!
Descartes: Oh, but when love comes first, heaven is a place on earth!
Hobbes: Mamma mia…here we go again.
Scene 3--Still in a bar--
Descartes approaches the girl—
Descartes: Hello, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rene Descartes, and I’m a philosopher.
Girl: *giggles* Pleased to meet you. My name is Fizzie, and I’m single.
Descartes: So am I….Fizzie, I’m tired of sitting by the fire alone. Will you marry me?
Fizzie:*squeals* Yes! But wait, how will you support our family? You are a philosopher.
Descartes: Well actually, I’ve decided to leave that all behind and write philosophical romance novels.
Fizzie: Oh! Then, yes!
Scene 4:
*Hobbes is at the bar, scribbling away* Hah! I wonder if anyone will ever believe this stuff.
*Inside the Descartes home, the scene resembles Sunday Mass at St. John’s. Children run hither and thither, while Descartes sits at his typewriter trying to finish his novel*
Descartes: And then Xanthippe responded, Socrates, you know that I love you passionately, but I don’t know if I can marry you, for I have seen a dark future before you in the entrails of this beast. You cannot escape treachery and poison. But noble Socrates replied, I must show the world the way out of the cave, even if it costs me my life and free meals in the town square…--Kids, keep it down, please!
Fizzie: Ren darling, your dinner is getting cold!
Descartes: *sighs to himself* How could I have ever doubted? It’s all too real!
Finis
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Rights: Natural Rights vs. Conventional Rights
Geoff: "Yes, an individual, apart from society, has the right to punish a criminal, on the basis of the natural law."
Andy: "By this I take it you mean, for example, that a hermit has the right to track down and kill a murderer in the desert."
Not just a hermit in the desert, but an individual who lives in a city, as well. Apart from society meaning, "Not necessarily without the approval of society." Because we all know sometimes society doesn't approve of what is just.
Andy: "However, I am not clear whether you think that this is a freedom (he can do it but he doesn't have to) or a duty (he is obligated to)"
It is a freedom in some cases, and in others, it would seem to be an obligation. You are not obliged to re-acquire your stolen property. You do have a right to it, if you so choose. A violent criminal must be taken out of society, lest he hurt others. Your obligation to punish someone, in these circumstances, is based on the a prudential judgment regarding how much of a risk the criminal is.
Andy: "Furthermore, is there any difference if the muderer committed the crime far, far away verses in the general vicinity of the hermit, versus in the hermits cave; is there any difference if the murdered one is a total stranger versus someone the hermit knows about versus someone the hermit interacts with versus a close friend of the hermit versus a family member of the hermit's; if the attempt to commit the crime equals the crime; and if there is anyway for the criminal to regain his right to life? Does the same hold true for other crimes and how so?"
Morally, an attempt to commit a crime is the same as having committed it. Physically, (which is the only thing a civil law must concern itself with) it is not the same. God will deal with the moral aspect. An individual or collective will deal with the physical threat. If someone poses an actual threat, then he should be incarcerated. Period. Nearly every time they let a violent felon out after 5 or however many years, they go out and rob, rape and kill again. They're obviously still a threat, and therefore should still be in prison. Prison isn't directed primarily to "rehabilitation." Its primary intent is to physically keep dangerous people from committing more violence. If someone rehabilitates after a time, great. But such an instance comes from the grace of God, not merely the prison bars that keep them from hurting other people.
Andy: "I would say (and the law does) that the claim to authority and property rests with the abused unless they act (or fail to act) in such a way as to imply that they do not have the right, so long as that right is naturally transmutable (as property and governments, but not life for instance, are). Thus even if the government seized land for highways or the American War for Independence was illegitimate, the fact that the ones depossed of land have acknowledged the government's claim, and the fact that Britain signed a treaty yielidng the colonies, makes it so."
Yes. Machiavelli said something like this, too. "Might makes right." It sounds like you're saying that a kid bullied at school forfeits his right to his lunch money, so long as he is incapable of resisting or speaking out, for fear of getting the tar beaten out of him.
Just because harm has been done does not mean it is moral to continually inflict new harms.
Geoff: "Parents punish because they have a :natural authority: over their children, AND because they are concerned with the interests of others."
Andy: "You are setting "natural authority" and "interests of others" up as distinct. I thought we said above that authority was the right and duties derived from being charged with the interests of others. If so, parents have a natural authority precisely because they have naturally have the obligation to care for the interests of their children. Thus natural authority (whence they derive their right to punish) is not discinct from their parental concern for the interests of their children. However, parental authority need not be and is not the only type of authority, nor the only type of authority that can punish.
What do you mean by natural authority as distinct from authority?"
Parents have a just claim, based on natural law, to discipline their own children in any reasonable manner they see fit. No one besides the parents, however, has the right to give a moral education to the parents' children. Because the parents, not society or unaffiliated individuals, are liable for the behavior of their children.
In civil society, no one has a claim to order another to eat his vegetables. A parent has this right, because the parent is naturally responsible for the moral and physical well-being of his child, who is not yet a grown, responsible adult. No adult has any natural-law-based authority over another adult, except for punishment of a violation of the life, liberty and property of others. God has authority over all. He created natural law. Man can only request that another man perform a morally good act, but demand that he respect the life, liberty and property of others. The right to demand such a thing flows from natural law.
Natural law says that parents have a right to reasonably rule over their children. Natural law does not say one adult has any "right" to rule another adult without his personal, express consent. This personal, express consent is not present in a democratic society where the majority will is imposed on all, even against the will of the minority.
But following the natural law concerning the life, liberty and property of others is a demand of nature, not merely of civil government. Civil government merely exists to punish infringements of these natural law rights of men. That is all. If any positive effects, such as a reduction of crime, flow from this punishment, extra bonus points. But that is not the reason government exists. A legitimate (read: non-taxation based) government may only punish those who have violated contracts or are an active threat to other people.
Andy: "By this I take it you mean, for example, that a hermit has the right to track down and kill a murderer in the desert."
Not just a hermit in the desert, but an individual who lives in a city, as well. Apart from society meaning, "Not necessarily without the approval of society." Because we all know sometimes society doesn't approve of what is just.
Andy: "However, I am not clear whether you think that this is a freedom (he can do it but he doesn't have to) or a duty (he is obligated to)"
It is a freedom in some cases, and in others, it would seem to be an obligation. You are not obliged to re-acquire your stolen property. You do have a right to it, if you so choose. A violent criminal must be taken out of society, lest he hurt others. Your obligation to punish someone, in these circumstances, is based on the a prudential judgment regarding how much of a risk the criminal is.
Andy: "Furthermore, is there any difference if the muderer committed the crime far, far away verses in the general vicinity of the hermit, versus in the hermits cave; is there any difference if the murdered one is a total stranger versus someone the hermit knows about versus someone the hermit interacts with versus a close friend of the hermit versus a family member of the hermit's; if the attempt to commit the crime equals the crime; and if there is anyway for the criminal to regain his right to life? Does the same hold true for other crimes and how so?"
Morally, an attempt to commit a crime is the same as having committed it. Physically, (which is the only thing a civil law must concern itself with) it is not the same. God will deal with the moral aspect. An individual or collective will deal with the physical threat. If someone poses an actual threat, then he should be incarcerated. Period. Nearly every time they let a violent felon out after 5 or however many years, they go out and rob, rape and kill again. They're obviously still a threat, and therefore should still be in prison. Prison isn't directed primarily to "rehabilitation." Its primary intent is to physically keep dangerous people from committing more violence. If someone rehabilitates after a time, great. But such an instance comes from the grace of God, not merely the prison bars that keep them from hurting other people.
Andy: "I would say (and the law does) that the claim to authority and property rests with the abused unless they act (or fail to act) in such a way as to imply that they do not have the right, so long as that right is naturally transmutable (as property and governments, but not life for instance, are). Thus even if the government seized land for highways or the American War for Independence was illegitimate, the fact that the ones depossed of land have acknowledged the government's claim, and the fact that Britain signed a treaty yielidng the colonies, makes it so."
Yes. Machiavelli said something like this, too. "Might makes right." It sounds like you're saying that a kid bullied at school forfeits his right to his lunch money, so long as he is incapable of resisting or speaking out, for fear of getting the tar beaten out of him.
Just because harm has been done does not mean it is moral to continually inflict new harms.
Geoff: "Parents punish because they have a :natural authority: over their children, AND because they are concerned with the interests of others."
Andy: "You are setting "natural authority" and "interests of others" up as distinct. I thought we said above that authority was the right and duties derived from being charged with the interests of others. If so, parents have a natural authority precisely because they have naturally have the obligation to care for the interests of their children. Thus natural authority (whence they derive their right to punish) is not discinct from their parental concern for the interests of their children. However, parental authority need not be and is not the only type of authority, nor the only type of authority that can punish.
What do you mean by natural authority as distinct from authority?"
Parents have a just claim, based on natural law, to discipline their own children in any reasonable manner they see fit. No one besides the parents, however, has the right to give a moral education to the parents' children. Because the parents, not society or unaffiliated individuals, are liable for the behavior of their children.
In civil society, no one has a claim to order another to eat his vegetables. A parent has this right, because the parent is naturally responsible for the moral and physical well-being of his child, who is not yet a grown, responsible adult. No adult has any natural-law-based authority over another adult, except for punishment of a violation of the life, liberty and property of others. God has authority over all. He created natural law. Man can only request that another man perform a morally good act, but demand that he respect the life, liberty and property of others. The right to demand such a thing flows from natural law.
Natural law says that parents have a right to reasonably rule over their children. Natural law does not say one adult has any "right" to rule another adult without his personal, express consent. This personal, express consent is not present in a democratic society where the majority will is imposed on all, even against the will of the minority.
But following the natural law concerning the life, liberty and property of others is a demand of nature, not merely of civil government. Civil government merely exists to punish infringements of these natural law rights of men. That is all. If any positive effects, such as a reduction of crime, flow from this punishment, extra bonus points. But that is not the reason government exists. A legitimate (read: non-taxation based) government may only punish those who have violated contracts or are an active threat to other people.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Government: Continued (For now)
Andy: "[Given the same crime,]why in one society did the criminal forfeit the right to life, in another the right to property, and another the right to liberty (freedom from imprisonment)? The only way I can see to resolve this is either because the authority (reasonably and etc.) established it as such the society qua society determined it was such (quite similar, maybe the same). I would accept this."
Every society decides for itself who will be an officially-recognized authority with coercive power. It is not necessarily in the form of a government. God did not drop a government or an authority figure into each society as it formed. The individuals decided whose judgment they would respect. There is no need for it to be a taxation-based government. Is there?
In the case of a criminal who commits a crime, society (or the individual; not the government itself, which, as you know, may not have the best interest of the people in mind) perceives that a punishment is just. The punishment imposed is not just merely because someone who was chosen by a numerical majority has imposed it.
In the U.S., a jury can interpret not only the facts of the case, but make a practical decision on whether a law is just or unjust. In the U.S. Constitutional legal system, the individual juror is the ultimate judge of what is unjust. Hear me out on the individual being able to decide what is a just punishment. I will cover it in greater depth later on in this post.
I am all in favor of the individuals that comprise a society voting for laws that concern force, fraud and coercion. With such a foundation, cases could be heard in private courts. (As you may know, the American Arbitration Association handles billions of dollars in settlements every year outside the court system.)
Discussions of the merits and practicality of the free-market legal system have already been covered, and I'd rather not cover it right now. For those who are interested, here's a decent article that discusses the concept. http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe16.html
Andy: "However, you seemed to assert elsewhere that society/government have no rights that individuals do not have (which I deny). You must then hold for this proposition that individuals have the right to kill, to seize money from, or to imprison one who has committed a crime against someone or himself, as they find reasonable. Is this the case, or is their a way out of the predicament for you?"
Correct. The individual does have these rights. But the punishment he "finds reasonable" must be in accordance with reality. If someone has murdered someone, he has forfeited his own life. You would be morally and legally culpable if the person you killed was not, in fact, the murderer. Such risks, (not merely that it is against a statute to seek justice on your own) are what keep individual-justice-enforcing actions in check right now, are they not?
Likewise, you would be morally and legally culpable if you were to seek more restitution than that which had been taken from you in the first place.
Morally, an individual could imprison a criminal for a crime he had committed. The duration of the imprisonment is either just or unjust. It depends on whether the punishment objectively fits the crime, not on an established custom. A customary punishment is established because it is perceived and accepted as just, not because the custom makes it just.
Some checks to ensure the justice of individual prisons:
First, it would be cost-inefficient to keep your own prison for people who have committed crimes. You would likely have to find people who would donate to keep an individual incarcerated. If I went around with a hat collecting money to keep a rapist in a private prison, you can bet it would be full before I got down one city block, and I wouldn't have to do it at gunpoint, like the government does. Insofar as you must have the approval of others for the length of time and conditions of incarceration in order to receive donations, society would brought into it, and therefore, you would have more men with their own sense of justice agreeing with your own.
Second, if you were acting grossly out of accordance with reason, your prisoner would be swiftly liberated by those who had a higher degree of reason.
Third, there are few people who, when taken captive for a true crime, would not agree to arbitration in a private court, or face the just consequence of being put in a private prison. (I estimate both parties would agree to arbitration/restitution through a private court 90% of the time, compared to imprisoning someone on one's own.)
Fourth, it could not possibly be worse than the absolutely disgusting state of the Department of "Corrections" we have running now: rape pits run by means of your coerced tax dollars. Rape pits staffed by testosterone-pumped, power-drunk, hot-dog necked guards who are willing to abuse prisoners at the drop of a hat. In the D.O.C. there is an almost complete lack of accountability, due to the ignorance of the public as to what goes on in prisons, due to public choice theory, and because the government has force on its side: force limited only by how much money it can manage to squeeze out of the taxpayer.
If a libertarian private justice system would be "chaos," sign me up. It would be a breath of fresh air compared to the "justice" system we have now. It would also save tens of thousands from being imprisoned for breaking asininely-enacted malum prohibitum laws.
Geoff: "When a government becomes corrupt, like you said, they have forsaken their end, and therefore forfeited their 'right'...to rule."
Andy: "But there is a difference between the criminal and the corrupt government."
A corrupt government is a collective of individual criminals. They should be charged as such.
Andy: "In the case of the criminal, the rights he would forfeit are life, liberty, and/or property.
In the case of the authority, the "right" is the power to create to civil laws and such binding in conscience."
If I say to society, "You may not steal from someone," it is binding in conscience. They must obey. Not because I said, it, though! Only because God said it. The same goes for a collection of individuals who say something in accord with divine law. Am I wrong? Is there something missing in my logic? Does the mere fact that a statute of conduct in accord with justice between men is written down suddenly make it morally binding? If there were no statutes at all, would it suddenly be all right to steal from my neighbor? "Morally binding" isn't the issue here. Coercion to back up the morally binding statement is the issue. I believe that anyone is only able to use force to protect, reclaim, or do justice concerning that which people have a claim to by the fact that they were born: life, liberty, property. It is inconvenient for individual men to enforce law (whether written on a piece of paper and/or in our hearts.) The present government is able to do so (sometimes), but only through immoral, forced property confiscation. That's a problem.
An individual, society or a government does not make a particular punishment just, it merely perceives that it is, and decides whether a punishment will be carried out. A punishment is intrinsically just or unjust, depending on the nature of the crime and whether the punishment fits the crime. A society, or an individual, can mete out a punishment. Whether it is just does not depend on any law except the divine law.
Where does anyone get an a priori right to play Robin Hood, taking money from people in order to do "good things?" Are you trying to say there is some social contract we all signed by having the misfortune to be born into a particular system? Kind of like how a child that was born to a slave mother and slave father actually "belonged" to the slaves' master? Because I sure don't vote for anyone to take my money. Are other people out there signing some contract on my behalf? Who gave them that right? Where does the buck stop, Andy? Does God will someone to take my property against my will? Is that what it comes down to? Because I sure think I have a "reasonable claim" to keep my money. Especially when my money could, certainly, do far more good in private enterprises that will eventually usurp and outshine all the "duties" and "services" that government claims to have and offer, respectively.
Andy: [speaking about non-standardized punishments] "One must demonstrate how this specific criminal act can legitimately permit the variety of punishments at the discretion of a non-authority."
There is no such thing as an objective, standardized "justice" for a crime committed on this earth. There's only a reasonable ballpark we can hit into. Perfect justice is for God to enact. You're making it sound as though a collection of individuals, chosen by some people (not all), and not very accountable to anyone, is somehow able to mete out a more perfect justice by the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is not the case.
Anyone has the authority to make a statement that is in accordance with divine law. Such a statement is, obviously, morally binding. What I do not understand is why you seem to imply that a government somehow precedes human social interaction. That there can morally be no justice in society without a government. Government is not a divine institution. It's a human institution. God gives no proprietary, special morality to a group of governing individuals. The criminal does not cede his permission to be punished by the government, or by any other individual, and it doesn't matter. Punishment and restitution goes beyond government, which is a human institution: it has its roots in natural law. If something is stolen, justice mandates that it be returned. Natural law doesn't say how. It just says it has to happen.
Every society decides for itself who will be an officially-recognized authority with coercive power. It is not necessarily in the form of a government. God did not drop a government or an authority figure into each society as it formed. The individuals decided whose judgment they would respect. There is no need for it to be a taxation-based government. Is there?
In the case of a criminal who commits a crime, society (or the individual; not the government itself, which, as you know, may not have the best interest of the people in mind) perceives that a punishment is just. The punishment imposed is not just merely because someone who was chosen by a numerical majority has imposed it.
In the U.S., a jury can interpret not only the facts of the case, but make a practical decision on whether a law is just or unjust. In the U.S. Constitutional legal system, the individual juror is the ultimate judge of what is unjust. Hear me out on the individual being able to decide what is a just punishment. I will cover it in greater depth later on in this post.
I am all in favor of the individuals that comprise a society voting for laws that concern force, fraud and coercion. With such a foundation, cases could be heard in private courts. (As you may know, the American Arbitration Association handles billions of dollars in settlements every year outside the court system.)
Discussions of the merits and practicality of the free-market legal system have already been covered, and I'd rather not cover it right now. For those who are interested, here's a decent article that discusses the concept. http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe16.html
Andy: "However, you seemed to assert elsewhere that society/government have no rights that individuals do not have (which I deny). You must then hold for this proposition that individuals have the right to kill, to seize money from, or to imprison one who has committed a crime against someone or himself, as they find reasonable. Is this the case, or is their a way out of the predicament for you?"
Correct. The individual does have these rights. But the punishment he "finds reasonable" must be in accordance with reality. If someone has murdered someone, he has forfeited his own life. You would be morally and legally culpable if the person you killed was not, in fact, the murderer. Such risks, (not merely that it is against a statute to seek justice on your own) are what keep individual-justice-enforcing actions in check right now, are they not?
Likewise, you would be morally and legally culpable if you were to seek more restitution than that which had been taken from you in the first place.
Morally, an individual could imprison a criminal for a crime he had committed. The duration of the imprisonment is either just or unjust. It depends on whether the punishment objectively fits the crime, not on an established custom. A customary punishment is established because it is perceived and accepted as just, not because the custom makes it just.
Some checks to ensure the justice of individual prisons:
First, it would be cost-inefficient to keep your own prison for people who have committed crimes. You would likely have to find people who would donate to keep an individual incarcerated. If I went around with a hat collecting money to keep a rapist in a private prison, you can bet it would be full before I got down one city block, and I wouldn't have to do it at gunpoint, like the government does. Insofar as you must have the approval of others for the length of time and conditions of incarceration in order to receive donations, society would brought into it, and therefore, you would have more men with their own sense of justice agreeing with your own.
Second, if you were acting grossly out of accordance with reason, your prisoner would be swiftly liberated by those who had a higher degree of reason.
Third, there are few people who, when taken captive for a true crime, would not agree to arbitration in a private court, or face the just consequence of being put in a private prison. (I estimate both parties would agree to arbitration/restitution through a private court 90% of the time, compared to imprisoning someone on one's own.)
Fourth, it could not possibly be worse than the absolutely disgusting state of the Department of "Corrections" we have running now: rape pits run by means of your coerced tax dollars. Rape pits staffed by testosterone-pumped, power-drunk, hot-dog necked guards who are willing to abuse prisoners at the drop of a hat. In the D.O.C. there is an almost complete lack of accountability, due to the ignorance of the public as to what goes on in prisons, due to public choice theory, and because the government has force on its side: force limited only by how much money it can manage to squeeze out of the taxpayer.
If a libertarian private justice system would be "chaos," sign me up. It would be a breath of fresh air compared to the "justice" system we have now. It would also save tens of thousands from being imprisoned for breaking asininely-enacted malum prohibitum laws.
Geoff: "When a government becomes corrupt, like you said, they have forsaken their end, and therefore forfeited their 'right'...to rule."
Andy: "But there is a difference between the criminal and the corrupt government."
A corrupt government is a collective of individual criminals. They should be charged as such.
Andy: "In the case of the criminal, the rights he would forfeit are life, liberty, and/or property.
In the case of the authority, the "right" is the power to create to civil laws and such binding in conscience."
If I say to society, "You may not steal from someone," it is binding in conscience. They must obey. Not because I said, it, though! Only because God said it. The same goes for a collection of individuals who say something in accord with divine law. Am I wrong? Is there something missing in my logic? Does the mere fact that a statute of conduct in accord with justice between men is written down suddenly make it morally binding? If there were no statutes at all, would it suddenly be all right to steal from my neighbor? "Morally binding" isn't the issue here. Coercion to back up the morally binding statement is the issue. I believe that anyone is only able to use force to protect, reclaim, or do justice concerning that which people have a claim to by the fact that they were born: life, liberty, property. It is inconvenient for individual men to enforce law (whether written on a piece of paper and/or in our hearts.) The present government is able to do so (sometimes), but only through immoral, forced property confiscation. That's a problem.
An individual, society or a government does not make a particular punishment just, it merely perceives that it is, and decides whether a punishment will be carried out. A punishment is intrinsically just or unjust, depending on the nature of the crime and whether the punishment fits the crime. A society, or an individual, can mete out a punishment. Whether it is just does not depend on any law except the divine law.
Where does anyone get an a priori right to play Robin Hood, taking money from people in order to do "good things?" Are you trying to say there is some social contract we all signed by having the misfortune to be born into a particular system? Kind of like how a child that was born to a slave mother and slave father actually "belonged" to the slaves' master? Because I sure don't vote for anyone to take my money. Are other people out there signing some contract on my behalf? Who gave them that right? Where does the buck stop, Andy? Does God will someone to take my property against my will? Is that what it comes down to? Because I sure think I have a "reasonable claim" to keep my money. Especially when my money could, certainly, do far more good in private enterprises that will eventually usurp and outshine all the "duties" and "services" that government claims to have and offer, respectively.
Andy: [speaking about non-standardized punishments] "One must demonstrate how this specific criminal act can legitimately permit the variety of punishments at the discretion of a non-authority."
There is no such thing as an objective, standardized "justice" for a crime committed on this earth. There's only a reasonable ballpark we can hit into. Perfect justice is for God to enact. You're making it sound as though a collection of individuals, chosen by some people (not all), and not very accountable to anyone, is somehow able to mete out a more perfect justice by the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is not the case.
Anyone has the authority to make a statement that is in accordance with divine law. Such a statement is, obviously, morally binding. What I do not understand is why you seem to imply that a government somehow precedes human social interaction. That there can morally be no justice in society without a government. Government is not a divine institution. It's a human institution. God gives no proprietary, special morality to a group of governing individuals. The criminal does not cede his permission to be punished by the government, or by any other individual, and it doesn't matter. Punishment and restitution goes beyond government, which is a human institution: it has its roots in natural law. If something is stolen, justice mandates that it be returned. Natural law doesn't say how. It just says it has to happen.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Sneak Peak
Hey all, thought you might enjoy a sneak peak at our yearbook page.
And since tomorrow (July 2) is the anniversary of this Union's indepence, happy Independence Day! ~Andy
And since tomorrow (July 2) is the anniversary of this Union's indepence, happy Independence Day! ~Andy
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Concerning Good Government IV
A young man was interviewing for his first job when a rather skeptical employer asked him, “Are you responsible?” “Yes,” the boy replied. “At least, that is what my mom says everytime something goes wrong.”
The concept of responsibility incorporates dual elements: moral judgment and accountability. Everyone is responsible for himself and his actions (for actions are intimately linked to identity, as stated in Part I) in so far as he can make moral judgments. Responsibility is always linked to a moral obligation.
A “right” could mean two things: something the government disallows itself from doing in law and legal proceedings (e.g. the “right” to no self-incrimination), and something that is intrinsically related to the person permitting him to do something specific. The former, which I would call a “privilege”, does not concern us at this time, as it is merely a “rule” the government agrees to follow. We will discuss government and such later. The latter one is the obverse of a moral obligation: When one is morally obligated in a specific case, he has the “right” to fulfill his obligation. This is not a “ends justify means”, for he must be obligated in the specific case considering all the circumstances. Take for instance a teacher. He has agreed to teach students, and therefore has a moral obligation to be there. If someone takes his keys (assuming the one and only way that he might make it is by car) to inhibit him from going, his right has been violated. However, he made not torture the taker of the keys to get them back, for if there is no moral way to get to class, he has to moral obligation to go to class and therefore no right to "do what is necessary" to get to class. Rights are always specific to the circumstance.
Someone may comment that this seems to reject the so-called fundamental right to life, but I would question whether, for instance the Secret Service Detailee has a right to preserve his life if an assassin is unjustifiably shooting the President (not saying there is a justifiable reason or not, just precluding a justified killing for this instance) and his chief means to save the President is to get between the bullet and the President. I would say that because of his job he has a moral duty to do whatever is in his power to save the President in this instance, and it would be wrong for him not to stop the bullet even at the cost of his life. I would suggest that the “right to life” speaks to the general moral obligation that one has to use all that God has given for the Honor and Glory of God. Life is the fundamental premise of this, and so one may never ordinarily take a life and one my only give his life when he is moral obligated to or when it is a moral option. To take a life immorally is to violate one’s right to life, but if one is faced with a death and there is no morally legitimate means of preserving his life, he has no right to preserve his life.
Lastly, authority is the power and duty that comes when one is charged with some interest of another. Authority is the power to command (not necessarily compel) obedience. Obedience is owed in justice to proper commands (something to discuss later) of an authority. However, the power to command obedience is intrinsically linked to moral obligation to treat the interest you are charged with as if it were your own interest. Should one neglect the interest, he in effect renounces his authority.
The concept of responsibility incorporates dual elements: moral judgment and accountability. Everyone is responsible for himself and his actions (for actions are intimately linked to identity, as stated in Part I) in so far as he can make moral judgments. Responsibility is always linked to a moral obligation.
A “right” could mean two things: something the government disallows itself from doing in law and legal proceedings (e.g. the “right” to no self-incrimination), and something that is intrinsically related to the person permitting him to do something specific. The former, which I would call a “privilege”, does not concern us at this time, as it is merely a “rule” the government agrees to follow. We will discuss government and such later. The latter one is the obverse of a moral obligation: When one is morally obligated in a specific case, he has the “right” to fulfill his obligation. This is not a “ends justify means”, for he must be obligated in the specific case considering all the circumstances. Take for instance a teacher. He has agreed to teach students, and therefore has a moral obligation to be there. If someone takes his keys (assuming the one and only way that he might make it is by car) to inhibit him from going, his right has been violated. However, he made not torture the taker of the keys to get them back, for if there is no moral way to get to class, he has to moral obligation to go to class and therefore no right to "do what is necessary" to get to class. Rights are always specific to the circumstance.
Someone may comment that this seems to reject the so-called fundamental right to life, but I would question whether, for instance the Secret Service Detailee has a right to preserve his life if an assassin is unjustifiably shooting the President (not saying there is a justifiable reason or not, just precluding a justified killing for this instance) and his chief means to save the President is to get between the bullet and the President. I would say that because of his job he has a moral duty to do whatever is in his power to save the President in this instance, and it would be wrong for him not to stop the bullet even at the cost of his life. I would suggest that the “right to life” speaks to the general moral obligation that one has to use all that God has given for the Honor and Glory of God. Life is the fundamental premise of this, and so one may never ordinarily take a life and one my only give his life when he is moral obligated to or when it is a moral option. To take a life immorally is to violate one’s right to life, but if one is faced with a death and there is no morally legitimate means of preserving his life, he has no right to preserve his life.
Lastly, authority is the power and duty that comes when one is charged with some interest of another. Authority is the power to command (not necessarily compel) obedience. Obedience is owed in justice to proper commands (something to discuss later) of an authority. However, the power to command obedience is intrinsically linked to moral obligation to treat the interest you are charged with as if it were your own interest. Should one neglect the interest, he in effect renounces his authority.
Concerning Good Government III
Because man is a social creature (he seeks to establish relationships to others as ends or means), he affects and is affected by many who he comes in contact with. His way of thinking, acting, behaving are shaped by the responses or lack thereof of those around him. In addition, man seeks to know truth and he recognizes that others seek to know truth. Because opinions of truth differ and ability to see ‘truth’ differ, man will often seek to convince others of the truth of his perceptions. Insofar as he convinces them, his perception of truth, which they now adopt, may influence their actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.
The product of this dynamic is a network of people connected by interpersonal relationships often based geographically but also by race, sex, social class, religion, etc., such that people think, judge, and act similarly in what has come to be known as “culture”. Culture is “the (common) way of life” of people of a specific (most generally incorporating a geographic) characteristic. Culture includes similarities both in what is thought and what is not thought about; what is done as a matter of course and what would never be done, as a matter of course. It ranges from (a common practice of) commission to (a common practice of) omission.
A related concept is “custom”, which involves a regular practice accepted by society. The difference between culture and custom is that “culture” incorporates a much more interconnected, expansive, and all encompassing “way of life” that may unknowingly pervade the most fundamental ways of thinking. “Custom” on the other hand is generally a practice that, conceivable, is independent enough to adopted by another group without a submission to the whole culture of the first (not denying the fact that some of the cultural things may come along with it).
Any objections?
The product of this dynamic is a network of people connected by interpersonal relationships often based geographically but also by race, sex, social class, religion, etc., such that people think, judge, and act similarly in what has come to be known as “culture”. Culture is “the (common) way of life” of people of a specific (most generally incorporating a geographic) characteristic. Culture includes similarities both in what is thought and what is not thought about; what is done as a matter of course and what would never be done, as a matter of course. It ranges from (a common practice of) commission to (a common practice of) omission.
A related concept is “custom”, which involves a regular practice accepted by society. The difference between culture and custom is that “culture” incorporates a much more interconnected, expansive, and all encompassing “way of life” that may unknowingly pervade the most fundamental ways of thinking. “Custom” on the other hand is generally a practice that, conceivable, is independent enough to adopted by another group without a submission to the whole culture of the first (not denying the fact that some of the cultural things may come along with it).
Any objections?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Concerning Good Government II
Man is naturally a social creature. By this I mean that in general one will seek to establish relationships with others. These relationships can be a practical end in and of itself in so far as one is seeking to fulfill his natural desire for human intimacy.
Part of this desire is that man seeks a fullness of experience, the “timeless moment”, the “absolute ability”, the “everlasting gobstopper”®. Man finds that he himself is limited, but that he is different than everyone else (not a difference of nature, but a difference of abilities, experience, perspective, etc.). Through relationships with others, he expands the “horizons” of his experience.
However, man also establishes human relations as means. Man is not self sufficient. Although he may be able to provide all his most basic material needs in solitary, such a life is difficult and will only be pursued for some great end. However, man quickly finds that he can fulfill his physical needs much easier and/or more fully by cooperating with others. It is the old, “I make shirts for both of us (since I’m better at it) and you make shoes for both of us (since you enjoy making shoes) and then we will trade” (this principle is called “division of labor”). Thus is the beginning of economics.
Man is also naturally family-oriented. The natural differences in the sexes (and in individual personalities and interests) and the mutual attraction of the sexes is part of man’s desire for human intimacy. The best way I can find to put it tonight is that in human relations (relations as an end), men generally seek respect—a rightful admiration for what they do well. Women seek self-gift—they wish to see people with “potential” do well. (Is it any wonder that men are braggarts and women are naggers?) This might just be a rephrasing of the old “Men are project oriented, and women are people oriented.” Anyhow, the complexity of this dimension is what raises human sexuality above a purely “animal” level—men and women share an interpersonal relationship, a “knowledge” of one another on a deeply spiritual (aka. non-material) level. A man will sacrifice himself when that sacrifice is received and respected. A women respects a man by recognizing his sacrifice and receiving it. (This is not to say that women don’t sacrifice or don’t sacrifice for men. Because women are “people oriented” they are often much quicker to give of themselves for others in need. However, I think the converse of this is that men tend to insist upon doing what they think they should do not for the respect others give them but because they need to do it for their self respect.)*
This mutual attraction reaches its fullness in the total self gift of conjugal union (to see this explained, see Theology of the Body of course). By nature, this union can become the source of a unique form of a human relationship, the family.
Any objections?
*Footnote* Is it any wonder that couples face so many difficulties? The man’s “pride” that bugs a woman so much is his implicit desire for self-respect (‘rightful’ admiration of self—The conformity of what he would like to say about himself with what he really is) in conflict with the woman’s wider view. She sees many people with needs that the man ‘should’ focus on, and whom the woman does focus on. A perfect setting for conflicting priorities.
C.f. Eph 5:33 (NAB) “In any case, each one of you [husbands] should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.” (Why the difference, why are husbands commanded to “love” (i.e. give of themselves for another) and women to “respect” (i.e. “Willingness to show consideration or appreciation”)). Anyhow, I am sure if I continue I will not only face the criticism of every member of this blog, but someone will also challenge my credentials by pointing for better or for worse that I do not have nor have ever had a girlfriend. As they say, for what it’s worth.
Part of this desire is that man seeks a fullness of experience, the “timeless moment”, the “absolute ability”, the “everlasting gobstopper”®. Man finds that he himself is limited, but that he is different than everyone else (not a difference of nature, but a difference of abilities, experience, perspective, etc.). Through relationships with others, he expands the “horizons” of his experience.
However, man also establishes human relations as means. Man is not self sufficient. Although he may be able to provide all his most basic material needs in solitary, such a life is difficult and will only be pursued for some great end. However, man quickly finds that he can fulfill his physical needs much easier and/or more fully by cooperating with others. It is the old, “I make shirts for both of us (since I’m better at it) and you make shoes for both of us (since you enjoy making shoes) and then we will trade” (this principle is called “division of labor”). Thus is the beginning of economics.
Man is also naturally family-oriented. The natural differences in the sexes (and in individual personalities and interests) and the mutual attraction of the sexes is part of man’s desire for human intimacy. The best way I can find to put it tonight is that in human relations (relations as an end), men generally seek respect—a rightful admiration for what they do well. Women seek self-gift—they wish to see people with “potential” do well. (Is it any wonder that men are braggarts and women are naggers?) This might just be a rephrasing of the old “Men are project oriented, and women are people oriented.” Anyhow, the complexity of this dimension is what raises human sexuality above a purely “animal” level—men and women share an interpersonal relationship, a “knowledge” of one another on a deeply spiritual (aka. non-material) level. A man will sacrifice himself when that sacrifice is received and respected. A women respects a man by recognizing his sacrifice and receiving it. (This is not to say that women don’t sacrifice or don’t sacrifice for men. Because women are “people oriented” they are often much quicker to give of themselves for others in need. However, I think the converse of this is that men tend to insist upon doing what they think they should do not for the respect others give them but because they need to do it for their self respect.)*
This mutual attraction reaches its fullness in the total self gift of conjugal union (to see this explained, see Theology of the Body of course). By nature, this union can become the source of a unique form of a human relationship, the family.
Any objections?
*Footnote* Is it any wonder that couples face so many difficulties? The man’s “pride” that bugs a woman so much is his implicit desire for self-respect (‘rightful’ admiration of self—The conformity of what he would like to say about himself with what he really is) in conflict with the woman’s wider view. She sees many people with needs that the man ‘should’ focus on, and whom the woman does focus on. A perfect setting for conflicting priorities.
C.f. Eph 5:33 (NAB) “In any case, each one of you [husbands] should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.” (Why the difference, why are husbands commanded to “love” (i.e. give of themselves for another) and women to “respect” (i.e. “Willingness to show consideration or appreciation”)). Anyhow, I am sure if I continue I will not only face the criticism of every member of this blog, but someone will also challenge my credentials by pointing for better or for worse that I do not have nor have ever had a girlfriend. As they say, for what it’s worth.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Concerning Good Government
First, do you agree with what has been call the theory of rational self-interest, namely: That human choice/intention can be characterized in terms of a description of self in relation to a project, where a project is either an end or means to a practical end that the individual desires. That project can either a project solely of the will (e.g. I hope Geoff agrees with me) or outside the will (e.g. I will write this post so that he does). All of the later types contain or can be written to contain one of the “being” verbs, where the subject of the verb is the individual willing. All of the former can also be written such, (i.e., I will hope…, I am hoping…, etc.). Thus even the most selfless acts include this personal dimension that makes them acts of the individual. Furthermore, that the ends of human willing are specific and practical. For example, projects are chosen for the sake of conformity intellect and reality, for the sake of conformity of what one communicates to others and one's intellect, for the sake of friendship (what I would call human intimacy), for the sake of play, for the sake of life, etc. These are not only personal goods, but also things that you can desire for another. Thus I will write this article for the mutual conformation of our intellects to reality.
Now, to take a normative step, do you have any objection to this: Because these are the natural and common ends of human action, when we in the ordinary course of our lives must make choices about ourselves and others, we ought to pursue these ends for others as for ourselves?
Now, to take a normative step, do you have any objection to this: Because these are the natural and common ends of human action, when we in the ordinary course of our lives must make choices about ourselves and others, we ought to pursue these ends for others as for ourselves?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Concerning Libertarianism
Properly speaking this may belong under the Beginning at the Beginning post, but considering the volital nature of these discussions, it won’t hurt to have it as its own post.
Now, I respond to Geoff’s posts in particular because I have to say that like the majority here I disagree with the majority of what he is espousing. Unlike the majority here, I imagine I agree with a substantial part of what he is saying.
The chief area I disagree with Geoff on (as I have told him before) is Libertarianism. For example: the illegitimacy of civil prohibitions on prostitution, homosexuality, assisted suicide, drugs, etc. Geoff is of the opinion that such prohibitions are “unenforceable”, impossible to have “unless you are knocking on bedroom doors”, and “should be legal”. These comments are derived from Geoff’s general precepts that “an unenforceable law is not a law at all”, that a “ ‘community’ does not have any new or special rights, or more rights than each and every individual in society has”, such evils “should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue”, and that “legislating against something…won’t work unless there are actual concrete [i.e. unconsenting] victims.” These are ultimately summed up in his belief that “you can only legislate against something if it is a violation of another person’s will or property”, and his position that such immorality can only be fixed through convincing someone that it is bad. As he describes it, “Otherwise it ultimately boils down to ‘Why shouldn’t I do this?’ ‘Because it’s illegal.’ ‘Oh. Well that’s not a very good reason. It’s penal law. Great.’”
To begin with, I believe that Geoff misevaluates the place custom has in what he describes. He writes:
In the past, it was not law that kept people from committing suicide, performing homosexual acts nor contracepting. The laws existed, yes, and were patently unenforceable. But such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral. One should also note that when the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws….
When it comes to pornography, #1 U.S. industry as it is, the only way to get people away from it is convincing them of why it is evil. We had laws against it before, and it was unenforceable then. The only reason it was not the biggest industry then was because people recognized why it was evil and abstained from it. Changing someone's mind has to come from convincing, not force. Otherwise, it ultimately boils down to "Why shouldn't I do this?" "Because it's illegal." "Oh. Well that's not a very good reason. It's a penal law. Great."Prostitution also violates "intrinsic human dignity." Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas said that prostitution should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue. I believe the unending "war on drugs" is similar. If not for the artificial shortage of these chemicals that drives prices up and makes illicit drug dealing lucrative, there would not be such widespread turf wars and violence, not only by dealers, but their users who rob and kill to get money to buy it.Prohibition is similar. They were passing a law ultimately intending to curtail the abuse of alcohol. A good end, yes? Alcohol abuse actually went up during prohibition. Sts. Augustine and Thomas were right: you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils. That is why God allows moral evils on earth: because it would be a greater evil to crush our free will.
Later on in the same string he writes
You could have a law against major distributors and pornography stores, but this stuff can be made by any Joe with a $600 camera and transmitted via the internet. You're not going to be able to achieve your ultimate end of getting rid of pornography. There will always be a demand, and the demand will be satisfied. The prices will go up, but it will be satisfied. We need to go after the root cause: why do people want this garbage? We need to convince them of the reasons they shouldn't. Get rid of all the demand, and you'll get rid of all the supply. Curtailing some supply does not eliminate demand.
Now consider the following: we agree that such things as prostitution, pornography, etc. ought not be practiced. Geoff admits that “such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral.” In other words, Geoff admits that, historically speaking, such evils have been minimized by the presence of a strong custom against it. He also says, “When the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws.” In other words, according to history, the laws have out-lived the customs. And yet he proposes to eliminate all laws prohibiting homosexuality and pornography (except maybe the distribution of pornography) even though many of our communities still retain an “overwhelming understanding…that these actions were grossly immoral.” Now remember, these prohibitions are not all ancient ones. Pornography could hardly pre-exist photography, and drugs did not enter America to a significant degree until after the Civil War, becoming most significant after the World Wars when they were used on the battlefield and such, causing a explosion of addictions. Apparently Geoff does not consider the possibility that such prohibitions, while they do not and cannot eradicate the evil, helped to establish and preserve the custom that does minimize the evil until other factors destroyed the custom. He sites Aquinas and Augustine—“ you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils”--but Aquinas and Augustine were speaking in a time when the “unenforceable” laws against prostitution were present and did help to keep prostitution a “dirty” crime on the outskirts of town. They did not speak against the laws, but the absolute enforcement of the laws. In their opinion, too strong of enforcement of these laws would drive the prostitution underground, allowing it to slip back into the city where it could threaten to undermine the established socio-moral order. Thus they tolerated it on the outskirts of the city where the evil was contained, where the effects of the evil lifestyle were more apparent, and where the prostitutes could be better ministered to by religious and lay people who understood that even prostitutes had souls to be saved.
In other words, basically argue that such laws are totally ineffective. They are like the Prohibition you even say. I remind you that United States still has the most stringent of laws on drinking in the world. Why? Because the movement that helped establish prohibition have created a “overwhelming understanding…that these actions were grossly immoral.” And they used the law to do it.
There is much more I could say regarding your position, but this post is long already. What I propose is this: I challenge you to start with human nature and the nature of the created and Uncreated order, and I want you to demonstrate that libertarianism is the best political philosophy. Or conversely, I will start with human nature and the nature of the created and Uncreated order and posit what I believe is the best political philosophy. Whoever does so should take it slowly and step by step so that he can easily respond to critiques. He would have to define such things as “freedom”, “authority”, “rights”, etc., and be able to defend his position with a proper argument.
If you would like to begin, go ahead. If you would like me to try, I will.
I await your response.
Now, I respond to Geoff’s posts in particular because I have to say that like the majority here I disagree with the majority of what he is espousing. Unlike the majority here, I imagine I agree with a substantial part of what he is saying.
The chief area I disagree with Geoff on (as I have told him before) is Libertarianism. For example: the illegitimacy of civil prohibitions on prostitution, homosexuality, assisted suicide, drugs, etc. Geoff is of the opinion that such prohibitions are “unenforceable”, impossible to have “unless you are knocking on bedroom doors”, and “should be legal”. These comments are derived from Geoff’s general precepts that “an unenforceable law is not a law at all”, that a “ ‘community’ does not have any new or special rights, or more rights than each and every individual in society has”, such evils “should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue”, and that “legislating against something…won’t work unless there are actual concrete [i.e. unconsenting] victims.” These are ultimately summed up in his belief that “you can only legislate against something if it is a violation of another person’s will or property”, and his position that such immorality can only be fixed through convincing someone that it is bad. As he describes it, “Otherwise it ultimately boils down to ‘Why shouldn’t I do this?’ ‘Because it’s illegal.’ ‘Oh. Well that’s not a very good reason. It’s penal law. Great.’”
To begin with, I believe that Geoff misevaluates the place custom has in what he describes. He writes:
In the past, it was not law that kept people from committing suicide, performing homosexual acts nor contracepting. The laws existed, yes, and were patently unenforceable. But such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral. One should also note that when the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws….
When it comes to pornography, #1 U.S. industry as it is, the only way to get people away from it is convincing them of why it is evil. We had laws against it before, and it was unenforceable then. The only reason it was not the biggest industry then was because people recognized why it was evil and abstained from it. Changing someone's mind has to come from convincing, not force. Otherwise, it ultimately boils down to "Why shouldn't I do this?" "Because it's illegal." "Oh. Well that's not a very good reason. It's a penal law. Great."Prostitution also violates "intrinsic human dignity." Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas said that prostitution should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue. I believe the unending "war on drugs" is similar. If not for the artificial shortage of these chemicals that drives prices up and makes illicit drug dealing lucrative, there would not be such widespread turf wars and violence, not only by dealers, but their users who rob and kill to get money to buy it.Prohibition is similar. They were passing a law ultimately intending to curtail the abuse of alcohol. A good end, yes? Alcohol abuse actually went up during prohibition. Sts. Augustine and Thomas were right: you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils. That is why God allows moral evils on earth: because it would be a greater evil to crush our free will.
Later on in the same string he writes
You could have a law against major distributors and pornography stores, but this stuff can be made by any Joe with a $600 camera and transmitted via the internet. You're not going to be able to achieve your ultimate end of getting rid of pornography. There will always be a demand, and the demand will be satisfied. The prices will go up, but it will be satisfied. We need to go after the root cause: why do people want this garbage? We need to convince them of the reasons they shouldn't. Get rid of all the demand, and you'll get rid of all the supply. Curtailing some supply does not eliminate demand.
Now consider the following: we agree that such things as prostitution, pornography, etc. ought not be practiced. Geoff admits that “such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral.” In other words, Geoff admits that, historically speaking, such evils have been minimized by the presence of a strong custom against it. He also says, “When the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws.” In other words, according to history, the laws have out-lived the customs. And yet he proposes to eliminate all laws prohibiting homosexuality and pornography (except maybe the distribution of pornography) even though many of our communities still retain an “overwhelming understanding…that these actions were grossly immoral.” Now remember, these prohibitions are not all ancient ones. Pornography could hardly pre-exist photography, and drugs did not enter America to a significant degree until after the Civil War, becoming most significant after the World Wars when they were used on the battlefield and such, causing a explosion of addictions. Apparently Geoff does not consider the possibility that such prohibitions, while they do not and cannot eradicate the evil, helped to establish and preserve the custom that does minimize the evil until other factors destroyed the custom. He sites Aquinas and Augustine—“ you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils”--but Aquinas and Augustine were speaking in a time when the “unenforceable” laws against prostitution were present and did help to keep prostitution a “dirty” crime on the outskirts of town. They did not speak against the laws, but the absolute enforcement of the laws. In their opinion, too strong of enforcement of these laws would drive the prostitution underground, allowing it to slip back into the city where it could threaten to undermine the established socio-moral order. Thus they tolerated it on the outskirts of the city where the evil was contained, where the effects of the evil lifestyle were more apparent, and where the prostitutes could be better ministered to by religious and lay people who understood that even prostitutes had souls to be saved.
In other words, basically argue that such laws are totally ineffective. They are like the Prohibition you even say. I remind you that United States still has the most stringent of laws on drinking in the world. Why? Because the movement that helped establish prohibition have created a “overwhelming understanding…that these actions were grossly immoral.” And they used the law to do it.
There is much more I could say regarding your position, but this post is long already. What I propose is this: I challenge you to start with human nature and the nature of the created and Uncreated order, and I want you to demonstrate that libertarianism is the best political philosophy. Or conversely, I will start with human nature and the nature of the created and Uncreated order and posit what I believe is the best political philosophy. Whoever does so should take it slowly and step by step so that he can easily respond to critiques. He would have to define such things as “freedom”, “authority”, “rights”, etc., and be able to defend his position with a proper argument.
If you would like to begin, go ahead. If you would like me to try, I will.
I await your response.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
On a lighter note
Top 10 Reasons to wear a chapel veil.
10. They look cool
9. Your boyfriend can find you in chapel simply by seeing the back of your head. Boyfriends of bare-headed women wander in vain.
8. They cover up bad hair days.
7. And days when you didn't have time to wash your hair.
6. And curlers.
5. If you need to create a diversion, you can lean too close to a candle and light it on fire.
4. They were recommended by St. Paul and made mandatory by Pope St. Linus.
3. They double as garrotes.
2. They are just soooo fascinating. Right up there with polkadots.
1. They honor the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament
10. They look cool
9. Your boyfriend can find you in chapel simply by seeing the back of your head. Boyfriends of bare-headed women wander in vain.
8. They cover up bad hair days.
7. And days when you didn't have time to wash your hair.
6. And curlers.
5. If you need to create a diversion, you can lean too close to a candle and light it on fire.
4. They were recommended by St. Paul and made mandatory by Pope St. Linus.
3. They double as garrotes.
2. They are just soooo fascinating. Right up there with polkadots.
1. They honor the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Purpose, End, and Means of Society
Trick questions are fun.
You ask: "Do we have any alternatives to defining society, the common good, the whole project of human life as lived in common, on the basis of individual liberties?"
I ask: do we have a need to? Why would we? What would be the end of doing so?
Any societal structure, including the family, is not an end in itself. Nor (except for the family) does it have a teleological end that is distinct from the individuals that give it structure. Societal structure of any kind is the product of freely-willed human interaction, and is formed by the free actions of the individuals within it.
The family is an institution formed by God: it is a voluntary society of a man and a woman, and any children with whom God chooses to bless them. The children are naturally bound to obey the parents. No one outside of a family is naturally bound to obey anyone besides God. The family received its order from God: love and support each other, and be fruitful and multiply.
A particular society of man is not instituted by God. It is instituted by men who freely choose to cooperate with others. Therefore, no one in society has a natural right of authority over another person. That is why I believe that government is an unnatural institution: governments exist to enforce an already extant order. Because there was no disorder before the fall, there was no reason for any institution to preserve order. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for believing that, and I know I am once again disagreeing with St. Thomas, but I'm throwing it out there to see if I can defend it.
Society is a natural, free association of individuals. The purpose of society is therefore synonymous with the purposes of the sum of the individuals who comprise it.
A prison camp could be called a society, but only if the prisoners decided to interact with each other. Individual freedom is a basic and necessary aspect of any society.
Should society help us get to heaven? Yes. Because society (individuals) should be good, because being good and a good example is conducive to getting to heaven. But you can't force society (individuals) to be good. You can only punish actions that are manifest violations of the equal rights of other individual human beings.
Society is only as good (or as bad) as the sum of the individual people that comprise it.
By freedom, I assume we all mean "the right to pursue that which we ought." Now certainly, nobody ought to pursue working on a Sunday. In the sense of our duty to God, we are not "free" to work on a Sunday. Hence, a law against working on Sunday would only be trying to uphold the rights of God, not man. Again, you would need a theocracy to enforce that, because it would be an attempt to force people to believe something/be morally good. Such a law would not protect the equal rights of individuals within a society. People should be free from constraint of other individuals with equal rights: free to enter into whatever voluntary contracts they choose.
If people really wanted it, there is no law stopping them from forming supra-natural societies of their own. A gated community. A morally "safe" place, where everything from mail, to television, to the internet, to speech, to behavior, is centrally monitored and screened for that which is immoral. Where people volunteer to be punished for any infringement of any of the commandments. Even hard-core Catholics don't form this totalitarian kind of community. Why not?
-Geoff
You ask: "Do we have any alternatives to defining society, the common good, the whole project of human life as lived in common, on the basis of individual liberties?"
I ask: do we have a need to? Why would we? What would be the end of doing so?
Any societal structure, including the family, is not an end in itself. Nor (except for the family) does it have a teleological end that is distinct from the individuals that give it structure. Societal structure of any kind is the product of freely-willed human interaction, and is formed by the free actions of the individuals within it.
The family is an institution formed by God: it is a voluntary society of a man and a woman, and any children with whom God chooses to bless them. The children are naturally bound to obey the parents. No one outside of a family is naturally bound to obey anyone besides God. The family received its order from God: love and support each other, and be fruitful and multiply.
A particular society of man is not instituted by God. It is instituted by men who freely choose to cooperate with others. Therefore, no one in society has a natural right of authority over another person. That is why I believe that government is an unnatural institution: governments exist to enforce an already extant order. Because there was no disorder before the fall, there was no reason for any institution to preserve order. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for believing that, and I know I am once again disagreeing with St. Thomas, but I'm throwing it out there to see if I can defend it.
Society is a natural, free association of individuals. The purpose of society is therefore synonymous with the purposes of the sum of the individuals who comprise it.
A prison camp could be called a society, but only if the prisoners decided to interact with each other. Individual freedom is a basic and necessary aspect of any society.
Should society help us get to heaven? Yes. Because society (individuals) should be good, because being good and a good example is conducive to getting to heaven. But you can't force society (individuals) to be good. You can only punish actions that are manifest violations of the equal rights of other individual human beings.
Society is only as good (or as bad) as the sum of the individual people that comprise it.
By freedom, I assume we all mean "the right to pursue that which we ought." Now certainly, nobody ought to pursue working on a Sunday. In the sense of our duty to God, we are not "free" to work on a Sunday. Hence, a law against working on Sunday would only be trying to uphold the rights of God, not man. Again, you would need a theocracy to enforce that, because it would be an attempt to force people to believe something/be morally good. Such a law would not protect the equal rights of individuals within a society. People should be free from constraint of other individuals with equal rights: free to enter into whatever voluntary contracts they choose.
If people really wanted it, there is no law stopping them from forming supra-natural societies of their own. A gated community. A morally "safe" place, where everything from mail, to television, to the internet, to speech, to behavior, is centrally monitored and screened for that which is immoral. Where people volunteer to be punished for any infringement of any of the commandments. Even hard-core Catholics don't form this totalitarian kind of community. Why not?
-Geoff
Beginning at the Beginning
I see I opened a whole can of worms with my "trick" question. In fact, I meant to and I think trick questions are sometimes fun!
However, if we are going to talk sensibly about these issues, we have to get a few things straight to begin with--define some terms, so to speak. Sadly, I'm not a very good philosopher, because while I think we should start at the beginning, I'm not quite sure where the beginning is! My best guess, however, is that we have to discuss a bit what we mean by "society" and "common good." Now, Geoff has stated that the common good is nothing more than the sum total of all the private goods of the individuals that comprise a society. Indeed, a society is merely a collection of individuals. What is central here? The individual, it seems. This is clearly reflected in the ideas of liberalism as well. Do we have any alternatives to defining society, the common good, the whole project of human life as lived in common, on the basis of individual liberties? Would it necessarily pierce a shaft into our freedom if we did not talk about it as the main purpose of societal structure? And what do we mean by freedom? This last is a big one, and for now I am just throwing out some questions for consideration. More later!
Pax +
Sylvia
However, if we are going to talk sensibly about these issues, we have to get a few things straight to begin with--define some terms, so to speak. Sadly, I'm not a very good philosopher, because while I think we should start at the beginning, I'm not quite sure where the beginning is! My best guess, however, is that we have to discuss a bit what we mean by "society" and "common good." Now, Geoff has stated that the common good is nothing more than the sum total of all the private goods of the individuals that comprise a society. Indeed, a society is merely a collection of individuals. What is central here? The individual, it seems. This is clearly reflected in the ideas of liberalism as well. Do we have any alternatives to defining society, the common good, the whole project of human life as lived in common, on the basis of individual liberties? Would it necessarily pierce a shaft into our freedom if we did not talk about it as the main purpose of societal structure? And what do we mean by freedom? This last is a big one, and for now I am just throwing out some questions for consideration. More later!
Pax +
Sylvia
Friday, June 15, 2007
Law and Morality
Concerning government and euthanasia.
Geoff said:
"Government is an instrument of force that exists to ensure that every individual respects the equal rights of every other individual in society."
and
"I think you can only legislate against something if it is a violation of another person's will or property."
I would be interested to hear how you connect these two statements. It seems to me that if the purpose of a government is to keep some from violating others' rights, and it can only do this if another person's will or property is violated, then people only have rights concerning property and what they desire. I don't want to put words in your mouth, however, so please clarify if this does not suffice.
It is true that law cannot change people's minds. Converting hearts is the ideal, and this the government cannot do, but it does have other (though lesser) duties. John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae spoke on this. He said:
"Civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which--were it prohibited--would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals--even if they are the majority of the members of society--an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom."
I would like to emphasize the section in which he says even toleration of an evil cannot be legitimized as a right. This seems to directly contradict what you are saying. You say civil law can only interfere when a person's will is contradicted. However, John Paul II teaches that humans have certain inviolate rights from God that must be protected by law, that even the individual does not have the right to deny. Do you agree that men have such rights?
John Paul II continues:
"The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical:
'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. . .'
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people."
Government is a human institution, and thus is bound to follow and promote the natural law. It is true that it must decide how to prudently do this. You belittle an imposed morality, but I don't see why it is such a bad thing that the government tries to prevent people from commiting evil acts of a grave and harmful nature that contradict the natural law. (Please note the word "grave"--I am not saying the government should control everything.) Frankly, I think that it is a good thing even if the individual doesn't understand why, for two reasons: first, it stops a crime, and second because it will be easier for the person to develope a sense of morality if they are living in conformity with the natural law. Law is supposed to make people good. How can it do this if it contradicts the natural law?
Geoff said:
"Government is an instrument of force that exists to ensure that every individual respects the equal rights of every other individual in society."
and
"I think you can only legislate against something if it is a violation of another person's will or property."
I would be interested to hear how you connect these two statements. It seems to me that if the purpose of a government is to keep some from violating others' rights, and it can only do this if another person's will or property is violated, then people only have rights concerning property and what they desire. I don't want to put words in your mouth, however, so please clarify if this does not suffice.
It is true that law cannot change people's minds. Converting hearts is the ideal, and this the government cannot do, but it does have other (though lesser) duties. John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae spoke on this. He said:
"Civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which--were it prohibited--would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals--even if they are the majority of the members of society--an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom."
I would like to emphasize the section in which he says even toleration of an evil cannot be legitimized as a right. This seems to directly contradict what you are saying. You say civil law can only interfere when a person's will is contradicted. However, John Paul II teaches that humans have certain inviolate rights from God that must be protected by law, that even the individual does not have the right to deny. Do you agree that men have such rights?
John Paul II continues:
"The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical:
'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. . .'
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people."
Government is a human institution, and thus is bound to follow and promote the natural law. It is true that it must decide how to prudently do this. You belittle an imposed morality, but I don't see why it is such a bad thing that the government tries to prevent people from commiting evil acts of a grave and harmful nature that contradict the natural law. (Please note the word "grave"--I am not saying the government should control everything.) Frankly, I think that it is a good thing even if the individual doesn't understand why, for two reasons: first, it stops a crime, and second because it will be easier for the person to develope a sense of morality if they are living in conformity with the natural law. Law is supposed to make people good. How can it do this if it contradicts the natural law?
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Baudelaire and King David
Folly and error, avarice and vice,
Employ our souls and waste our bodies' force.
As mangey beggars incubate their lice,
We nourish our innocuous remorse.
Our sins are stubborn, craven our repentance.
For our weak vows we ask excessive prices.
Trusting our tears will wash away the sentence,
We sneak off where the muddy road entices.
Cradled in evil, that Thrice-Great Magician,
The Devil, rocks our souls, that can't resist;
And the rich metal of our own volition
Is vaporised by that sage alchemist.
The Devil pulls the strings by which we're worked:
By all revolting objects lured, we slink
Hellwards; each day down one more step we're jerked
Feeling no horror, through the shades that stink.
Just as a lustful pauper bites and kisses
The scarred and shrivelled breast of an old whore,
We steal, along the roadside, furtive blisses,
Squeezing them, like stale oranges, for more.
Packed tight, like hives of maggots, thickly seething
Within our brains a host of demons surges.
Deep down into our lungs at every breathing,
Death flows, an unseen river, moaning dirges.
If rape or arson, poison, or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life —
It is because we are not bold enough!
Amongst the jackals, leopards, mongrels, apes,
Snakes, scorpions, vultures, that with hellish din,
Squeal, roar, writhe, gambol, crawl, with monstrous shapes,
In each man's foul menagerie of sin —
There's one more damned than all. He never gambols,
Nor crawls, nor roars, but, from the rest withdrawn,
Gladly of this whole earth would make a shambles
And swallow up existence with a yawn...
Boredom! He smokes his hookah, while he dreams
Of gibbets, weeping tears he cannot smother.
You know this dainty monster, too, it seems —
Hypocrite reader! — You! — My twin! — My brother!
--Baudelaire, "Au Lecteur," tr. by Roy Campbell
What a scathing presentation of ennui, and how accurate. The vice of sloth, who swallows "existence with a yawn," is one of the most difficult vices to resist, perhaps second only to pride. As I read this poem, though, it occurred to me that this is the inverse of the praises of God. Compare it with the psalm, "Miserere Mei Deus."
Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity.
Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me.
To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee: that thou mayst be justified in thy words and mayst overcome when thou art judged.
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.
To my hearing thou shalt give joy and gladness: and the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice.
Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
Create a clean heart in me, O God: and renew a right spirit within my bowels.
Cast me not away from thy face; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit.
I will teach the unjust thy ways: and the wicked shall be converted to thee.
Deliver me from blood, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall extol thy justice. O Lord, thou wilt open my lips: and my mouth shall declare thy praise.
For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted.
A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up.
Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar.
Baudelaire lived a profligate and hedonistic life, hounded by moods of severe melancholy, and died of disease. He writes from his experience. In his poem on sloth, he speaks for all those who are trapped in vice but cannot escape, who feel themselves yanked down towards the devil with every move. The gates of hell and the yawning maw of boredome are the same for him.
All the while, the words of the Psalmist are sung by the Church every week, repeating that the heart can be clean, and begging God to open our mouths to praise.
I know we have all felt the emotions of Baudelaire, and have known the salvation from the futile ways that David sings of. I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that it is very good to be Catholic.
Employ our souls and waste our bodies' force.
As mangey beggars incubate their lice,
We nourish our innocuous remorse.
Our sins are stubborn, craven our repentance.
For our weak vows we ask excessive prices.
Trusting our tears will wash away the sentence,
We sneak off where the muddy road entices.
Cradled in evil, that Thrice-Great Magician,
The Devil, rocks our souls, that can't resist;
And the rich metal of our own volition
Is vaporised by that sage alchemist.
The Devil pulls the strings by which we're worked:
By all revolting objects lured, we slink
Hellwards; each day down one more step we're jerked
Feeling no horror, through the shades that stink.
Just as a lustful pauper bites and kisses
The scarred and shrivelled breast of an old whore,
We steal, along the roadside, furtive blisses,
Squeezing them, like stale oranges, for more.
Packed tight, like hives of maggots, thickly seething
Within our brains a host of demons surges.
Deep down into our lungs at every breathing,
Death flows, an unseen river, moaning dirges.
If rape or arson, poison, or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life —
It is because we are not bold enough!
Amongst the jackals, leopards, mongrels, apes,
Snakes, scorpions, vultures, that with hellish din,
Squeal, roar, writhe, gambol, crawl, with monstrous shapes,
In each man's foul menagerie of sin —
There's one more damned than all. He never gambols,
Nor crawls, nor roars, but, from the rest withdrawn,
Gladly of this whole earth would make a shambles
And swallow up existence with a yawn...
Boredom! He smokes his hookah, while he dreams
Of gibbets, weeping tears he cannot smother.
You know this dainty monster, too, it seems —
Hypocrite reader! — You! — My twin! — My brother!
--Baudelaire, "Au Lecteur," tr. by Roy Campbell
What a scathing presentation of ennui, and how accurate. The vice of sloth, who swallows "existence with a yawn," is one of the most difficult vices to resist, perhaps second only to pride. As I read this poem, though, it occurred to me that this is the inverse of the praises of God. Compare it with the psalm, "Miserere Mei Deus."
Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity.
Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me.
To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee: that thou mayst be justified in thy words and mayst overcome when thou art judged.
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.
To my hearing thou shalt give joy and gladness: and the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice.
Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
Create a clean heart in me, O God: and renew a right spirit within my bowels.
Cast me not away from thy face; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit.
I will teach the unjust thy ways: and the wicked shall be converted to thee.
Deliver me from blood, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall extol thy justice. O Lord, thou wilt open my lips: and my mouth shall declare thy praise.
For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted.
A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up.
Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar.
Baudelaire lived a profligate and hedonistic life, hounded by moods of severe melancholy, and died of disease. He writes from his experience. In his poem on sloth, he speaks for all those who are trapped in vice but cannot escape, who feel themselves yanked down towards the devil with every move. The gates of hell and the yawning maw of boredome are the same for him.
All the while, the words of the Psalmist are sung by the Church every week, repeating that the heart can be clean, and begging God to open our mouths to praise.
I know we have all felt the emotions of Baudelaire, and have known the salvation from the futile ways that David sings of. I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that it is very good to be Catholic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)