Hold Your Nose and Vote?: On the Wickedness of Voting for "The Lesser of Two Evils"

Most Americans are disgusted with the primary candidates this year. If you're a conservative like me, you've probably seen your fellow conservative Christian friends and relatives squirm while they tell you that we simply must "hold our nose" and vote for Donald Trump. They tell you, “Trump is awful, but I have to vote for him, I have to because the alternative is Hillary Clinton, and that's worse!” The fear is obvious, and understandable. Leaving aside issues of personal evil, Hillary Clinton supports values that stand at odds with the values of politically conservative Christians.

“Perhaps,” you suggest, “there’s another alternative. We could always vote for a third party.”

“No,” your friends and relatives tell you, “A vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton.”

The force of this argument, as far as I can tell, rests on two concerns. The one is pragmatic—a third party candidate eats into votes that might have gone to Trump and so means that Clinton is more likely to win the majority and therefore the presidency. The reasoning here is that Trump is bad, but if he wins our values might at least get a seat at the table. If Clinton wins we’re cut out from power. A particular crux of this fear rests in the appointment of Supreme Court justices. The other crux of the argument though, and the one I think really drives people, is its moral force. We are citizens in a democracy. We are morally responsible for the course of our society, and the fear is that if we vote for a third party candidate we are morally responsible for a Clinton presidency. I have even seen one extreme example of this in a Facebook comment (in response to this post on Vox) that argued that Christians who choose to not vote for Trump will have “the blood of all the abortions after this election” on their hands.

It’s undeniable that some who present themselves as social conservatives want power for its own sake. However, I believe that most want a seat at the table because they believe in their cause and they are convinced that they are morally on the line for the likely Clinton victory if they don’t vote for Trump. I should pause here to say that while I am focusing in this post on the conservative viewpoint, these same principles apply its liberal mirror. Even Michelle Obama has told liberal voters that if they vote for a third party liberal candidate they are voting for Trump, and as with the conservative side, I believe the force here is both pragmatic and moral. Michelle Obama is pointing to Trump and asking liberal voters, "Do you want to be responsible for that?"

However, the moral force of this argument does not hold up under closer scrutiny, and when that crumbles I believe that any case for voting for Donald Trump (or Hillary Clinton if you're a liberal who finds her reprehensible) crumbles with it.

Before I get to the reasoning behind this argument, however, I need to make a point of clarification. I am convinced that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are evil candidates. There’s been plenty of ink spilled on why that’s the case. Matt Anderson has a great post arguing that point on Mere Orthodoxy. So, I’m taking the evil of Clinton and Trump as an assumption for the purposes of this post. I know there are plenty of people who disagree and think either Clinton or Trump admirable. I am not writing to them. I’m writing to those who want to “hold their nose” and vote for Trump.

Voting for the Lesser Evil to Save Your Soul

With that out of the way, let’s get to the idea that if you vote for a third party candidate you are morally culpable for the ultimate election of Hillary Clinton, and that we should therefore vote for Trump. Put formally, the argument looks like this:

1. A vote for Trump is a vote for an evil candidate.
2. A vote for Clinton is a vote for an evil candidate.
3. I am morally responsible for the evil of the candidate I vote for.
4. A vote for a 3rd party conservative candidate is a vote for Clinton for which I am morally responsible.
5. Clinton is more evil than Trump because her ends are more evil than his. ∴ I will vote for Trump.

I obviously agree with premises a) through c). I am convinced that we, as citizens in a democracy, have a duty to vote and share a responsibility in the direction of our society. I’ve already laid my cards on the table regarding how I feel about Trump and Clinton (personally, I think the premise that Clinton’s ends are more evil that Trump’s is debatable, but that isn’t my concern today). The real crux of the argument, I think, is the notion that if I vote for a candidate other than Trump, I am morally culpable for the evils of a Clinton presidency.

To understand the morality of this from a Christian perspective, we need to take a step back and consider the basic anatomy of a moral action. In the classical Christian tradition, moral action rests on the free human will working itself out in the world. An actions moral content rests both on the ends sought and the means taken to reach that end. Various Christian philosophers, from St. Maximus the Confessor to St. Thomas Aquinas, have broken up the process of willing in different ways, but the general principles remain the same. Human beings have wills. These wills are free, but not arbitrarily so. Rather, we see ends that we wish to bring about, contemplate some action to accomplish those ends, and then engage in that action. Moral goodness and moral evil are both possible at any point along this spectrum. If I plan to kill someone, think up the means, and try and implement those means, I have committed moral evil even if I fail to kill them. By the same token, if I will to bring about world peace but choose as my means the eradication of people who stand in the way, I have also committed moral evil.

At no stage in this process can I be morally culpable for things which happen outside of my will and the means I take to engage that will. To give an example, suppose one of my neighbors decides he very much wants my roommate’s television set. He has an end in mind (acquiring the TV), and has decided on means (burglary) which he engages in one night when no one is home. In this case, both the means decided on and the act actually engaged in are morally evil. That I happen to be out having dinner with my girlfriend when the crime occurs, (which makes it easier for him to commit the crime) in no way makes me culpable for his crime. I am not involved in the chain of cause and effect resulting from his will and ending in the burglary of a television.  In the case of the burglary, the person committing the crime is responsible for their own action. I am responsible for burglary only if I choose to burglar someone myself.  Even if a lot of people in my area decide to start burglarizing other people so that my area becomes an “unsafe neighborhood,” I am only morally responsible for the direct actions I take. Even the choice to go out for dinner with my girlfriend (despite the fact that I live in an unsafe neighborhood and there is a possibility my house will be burglarized) does not make me in any way morally complicit in the burglary.

So what about voting? Does my vote for someone like Evan McMullin count morally as a vote for Clinton if she wins? It should be fairly obvious that I am not  directly responsible for the votes other people cast. Imagine that my best friend loathes NAFTA and decides that the best way to get rid of it is to vote for Clinton, who he judges to have more political savvy. He has an end in mind (NAFTA getting abolished), means (the election of Clinton), and an act he engages in to bring about his end (voting for Clinton). At no point in this process is my will engaged, nor can I do anything directly (short of criminal interference) to prevent him from voting for Clinton.

The possibility remains, however, that by voting for someone other than Trump I could be engaging in a sin of omission. We can be responsible to act to stop a moral evil being committed, and if we don't act we are doing something wrong. For example, if I came home to find my neighbor stealing my roommate’s TV and fail to call the police or otherwise interrupt the burglary, I bear some responsibility for the evil that results. Yet, the reason I bear some guilt is that by coming home during the burglary I become directly involved in the cause and effect chain. As a witness to the crime, I therefore either engage my will to stop the crime or to consent to it.

I would argue that in the case of voting, no similar sin of omission is possible. When we vote, we engage in a very isolated moral scenario. We do not know for a fact how anyone else will vote. Individual voters decide indepently who they would like to represent them as the leader of their nation. When each individual voter has made their decision as to who to vote for, these votes are then added together state-by-state to determine who the States’ electoral votes go to. The electoral decision itself is thus not, strictly speaking, a moral one. No agent is, in and of themselves, choosing the state of affairs that come about. The electoral decision is like the case of the unsafe neighborhood. It is the result of many actions taken by individuals. As with the case of the neighborhood, I am responsible for the direct actions I choose to take. I am not morally responsible for the moral decision other voters make when they cast their vote, because there is no direct cause-effect relationship between my voting for, say Evan McMullin; three other people voting for Trump; and five more voting for Clinton. The fact that the outcome is an electorate that goes to Clinton is not a direct result of my vote, but of the combined results of our independent actions. As such, my action in that case can only rightly be construed as a vote for McMullin, not a vote for Clinton. Because the vote is blind, I act without direct knowledge of how anyone else is going to act. I can at best estimate based on past trends, but that’s not the same kind of moral action as directly intervening to stop a crime (the crime is an event occurring; the predicted statistical outcome of an election is a projection—a likely but still imaginary scenario). My action in voting for a third party candidate is more like that of the choice to go out to dinner with my girlfriend despite the possibility of a burglary. It is at worst imprudent. It is certainly not morally evil.

The Prudential Vote

The question of prudence, then, brings us to the possibility of voting for Trump for merely pragmatic reasons. I may not think I am morally responsible for the election of Clinton if I vote for someone other than Trump, but I may think that the ends I have (ending abortion, for example) are better served by a Trump presidency, and so the most pragmatic means to bring about my end is to vote for Trump. It is possible that some who argue that a vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton are simply saying so as shorthand for this kind of pragmatic reasoning and intend to imply no moral culpability in the election of  Clinton for those who vote for third party candidates. This pragmatic reasoning could be formalized as follows:

1. A vote for Trump is a vote for an evil candidate.
2. A vote for Clinton is a vote for an evil candidate.
3. Trump is more likely to support the causes I agree with.
4. It is pragmatic to vote for a candidate who will support the causes I agree with. ∴ I will vote for Trump.

Yet, this kind of reasoning runs afoul of the classical Christian understanding of moral action described above. Moral evil is not merely relative to the ends I have in mind. The plans I come up with to reach that end and the means by which I engage those plans in the real world also have moral content. Going back to our example of burglary—if I stumble upon the burglary in progress and decide to stop it by torturing the burglar, I am guilty of moral evil. Indeed, the bulk of the Christian tradition would say that if torturing the burglar were somehow my only way to stop the burglary, then it would be better for me to allow the crime to take place than engage in evil to stop evil. In the case of voting, if Trump is evil and I intend to use him to reach the end I desire, my means are evil. Even if my end is something laudable, such as ending abortion, I am culpable for moral evil if I choose evil means to bring it about.

Indeed, this ultimately makes the point that even if the information available to me, such as polling data, so involves me in the chain of cause and effect that a failure to stop the election of Clinton by voting for Trump is something I would be morally culpable for, I could still never be justified in choosing the evil means that a vote for Trump represents.

Conclusion

So, to summarize, you are responsible for the decision you make in voting, not the decisions others make, and choosing an evil candidate simply to stop a worse one is operating in a utilitarian mode that is at odds with Christian ethics. As such, the only real option for Christian voters is to vote for the candidate they consider to be the best potential leader for our country, not to vote for the lesser of two evils. As far as I’m concerned, that means voting for a third party candidate. This is true even though the moral decisions of others will probably mean a candidate. Which candidate is best, of course, still remains for you as the voter to judge.

Sometimes Something Goes Right

By NASA. Photo taken by either
 Harrison Schmitt or Ron Evans (of the Apollo 17 crew).
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes something goes right in the world.

It's been a rough week for sane readers of the news. With everything from a certain Republican showing an abysmal ignorance of female anatomy to horribly offensive topical bibles... it's been easy to fall to despairing.

But sometimes, something goes right with the world, and I can't help but smile.

You see, being pro-life should be about more than an opposition to abortion. It should be about a passionate respect for all life, and a commitment to the protection of those who cannot protect themselves, be they the unborn or rape victims. Yet, as Rep. Akin's comments earlier this week showed, those in the pro-life movement can sometimes loose sight of that fact.

Then today I read this piece of news at the Huffington Post. Go ahead, read it.

Now let that soak in. 50,000 Pro-Life Christians are supporting care for the environment. 50,000 Pro-Life Christians are putting life first, not a particular issue. 50,00 Pro-Life Christians understand that protecting the environment is not about the defense of some abstract thing, but about the stewardship of our world.

Somewhere, right now, out there in America, 50,00 Pro-life Christians who get it are walking around.

Sometimes something goes right in the world.

The Anti-American

I, Daniel Schwen
 [GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.5], via Wikimedia Commons

Anti-American is a phrase I hear bandied about a lot these days. Mostly, I'm afraid, it's in conservative circles. It's a phrase, however, that doesn't seem to have any clear content. Or, rather, it's a catchall for anything and everything the conservative speaker disagrees with. Obama is anti-American because he's "a socialist," for example.

The thing is, I cannot imagine anything more fundamentally anti-American than this use of the phrase. The very foundation of what it is to be American, I would think, is to be (little "d") democratic. Our society is built on the principle that government serves by the will of the people. The people, the society, not you and your personal opinions. Of course, "the people" is an abstract concept - the will of "the people" really consists of the will of many of the people, and your personal viewpoint is one that must be taken into account in determining that will. That's why we vote.

In the end though, sometimes the vote goes against you. Sometimes a president gets voted in on a mildly liberal platform, promises he'll reform healthcare and then actually does it. Well, you may not like it (I'm certainly not sure what I think of "Obamacare") but it is, to some degree or another, the will of the people.

So it's not your will. Well, good thing is we are a democracy, and you can fight Obamacare, or anything else about liberalism you don't like, and try and get things changed. Of course the system isn't perfect, many people are disenfranchised in one way or another by our society because all human societies have at least some oppression built into them.¹ But you can try, and you won't be shot for it, and that's a good thing. More importantly, it's the fundamentally American thing, the ability to disagree, to debate, and then to build a society off of the results of that debate, in our case determined by vote.

The flipside of that is, however, that if the debate doesn't go your way, you don't dare call the outcome anti-American (assuming the result isn't one that someone disenfranchises someone). To call viewpoints you disagree with anti-American is to subvert debate, to say that democracy is fine and all as long as it goes my way, and so is, in short, to be a tyrant. It is to be anti-American.

________________________________________________

1. I don't mean to be flippant about the oppression that exists in our society. I'm a Christian, I believe Christ came to set all captives free, and that all societies that exist for the sake of the small elite and the expense of the weak and downtrodden (read: all societies ever until Christ returns) are to some degree or another demonic. We should fight the demonic, and always strive to make society more equitable, even if we never reach our goal.

This means that war is conducted like a funeral

Human life is of infinite worth.

That's the message of the cross. That's the message of the Resurrection. God, in the person of the Son, became one of us. The divine nature was joined to the human, that life died, and rose again. Death was conquered. Life affirmed to be more than death.

The infinite value of human life is violated every time a life is taken, every time a person is abused.

That's why the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were such a horror. Thousands of people dead. Not thousands of Americans, thousands of people.

And now Osama bin Laden is dead. And it's a sad thing. It's probably a good thing, the world is probably better for it, but it's sad. Though it be good that he is dead, rejoice not. Gloat not. "Do not rejoice when your enemies fall,
and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble” (Proverbs 24:17). Or, as the Tao says, "This means that war is conducted like a funeral. When many people are being killed, They should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow" (Tao 31).

Or you know, Jesus, "Love your enemies."

As Rod over at Political Jesus said, "that Jesus, just such a party pooper."

Theology: Islamophobia and the Myth of Security

I've recently been in some discussing with some hyper-conservatives over Islamophobia. They seem to fear that ever Muslim in the world is out to destroy them. First off, let me say that I don't have the expertise in the religion either doctrinally or politically to make real comment on whether these fears are founded. In the end, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the manic fear and the claim that "Islam is a religion of peace"... but I digress.

This post isn't about that. Rather, this post is about security, specifically the frequent call to sacrifice liberty in the name of security. To, for example, ban the hijab lest "those people" bomb us. During the course of a debate over the insane content of the linked post, someone made the following claim "Liberals don't understand that they will be beheaded like the rest of us." What follows is my response, edited slightly to be less bound by the context of that conversation.

It could be the case we'll all be beheaded. So what? We are called not to return "evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing" (1 Peter 3:9). Christ calls us to love our enemies, telling us "...not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" (Matthew 5:39). We are to pour ourselves out, in Christ's example, even to death on a cross.

Admittedly, this is why no nation can ever be a Christian nation, because no nation can act in such a way, but the good nation is moderate. This is the benefit of democracy, the extremes don't get their way, the government is kept from becoming too much of a top down force for whatever vision of the good those in power have in mind. Part of moderate government is punishing criminals for crimes committed, not punishing people groups for potential crimes.

Even the most hate-filled, vitriolic people are (or should be) free to be what they are until they act out evil. Man is too frail, to fallible, to be trusted with guarding against potential evils. The thought that we can attain security is always an illusion. No earthly power can ever make us safe - just look at the horror natural disasters wreak.

In this life, the only security we can have is the security of the Resurrection in Christ Jesus our Lord. This is the one thing promised to us by the Revelation of St. John. The world is a bad place, tyrants rule, the church will come under persecution. But love conquers, the Lamb Who Was Slain is the Mighty Lion of Judah. And in the end, as we labor in love, the Lord will return, the world will be set right, and "...God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

To build up prejudicial barriers of defense is to be like the rich man in the parable (Luke 12: 13-21), storing up grain for a day that may never come (James 4:14). I say again, security at the expense of liberty will always buy you tyranny.

Real people, who should be loved and respected, are being turned into symbols of fear in order to further an agenda. A woman wearing a hijab is being looked as as a potential suicide bomber, and the sight of a hijab as the importantion of sharia law.

There's a huge gap between sharia law and a dress of modesty like the hijab. Seriously, imagine if you were an American woman asked to go topless or stay out of public because the dominant power in your nation feared you might carry a bomb (or a gun, or a knife) under your shirt or bra. How humiliating would that be for you?

That is what the Cult of Security is calling for.

I believe in a God who is sovereign. I do not need to fear, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7) I will seek Christ, seek to shine His love to the world. I will stumble, but by His grace I will be raised up again. And in all things, in all places I will know that I am secure.

The blessing of Christ go with you.

Philosophy/Politics: Justifying Wickedness

Let me tell you a story. A long time ago, a great nation was embroiled in a costly war. For every inch of ground gained against their enemy, the nation lost many sons. But they would not back down, they would destroy whatever stood in the way of victory, because God was on their side. And they won, they found the key to victory, they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of the enemies men, women and children. They weren't soldiers, but it sent a clear lesson. We will do whatever it takes to win. The enemy surrendered, the great nation one. God was on their side.

When I tell this story, what is your reaction? Probably, you think the "great nation" acted monstrously. It killed civilians in the name of winning a war. It murdered to achieve its victory.

Unless of course you knew I was talking about the United States bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You're reaction might have been the same, but some of you will defend what the US did. I know because I've heard it. I know because, sadly, there was a time when I did it.

The logic goes something like this. It was sad, but it had to be done. More lives would have been lost if we hadn't. The Japanese were never going to surrender. They were going to give sharpened sticks to their women and children, fight for every inch of ground.

None of that matters. None of it matters because if using a weapon of mass destruction on a city can be justified, then any atrocity can be justified so long as the end goal is good enough (and presumably succeeds). Don't forget that the Nazi's committed their genocides in the name of establishing a lasting pax romana of German rule. If obliterating over 150,000 civilians in the name of wining a war is justifiable, surely murdering a few million Jews in the name of lasting world peace is. At the very least, surely torturing a few suspected terrorists or jailing a few uppity reporters is.

In the end, we justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not because they were right, but because they were done by us. We were the victors. God is on our side.

Philosophy/Politics: The Justice of War

I believe deeply in the sacredness of life; it’s why I’m a vegetarian, it’s why I’m against abortion, it’s why I oppose the death penalty. It is also what inclines me towards pacifism, but I find myself unable to call myself a pacifist.

War is horrendous. Death reigns, atrocities are committed. No matter how robust our notions of just war, there is something about the act of war that makes us forget our humanity. Even World War II, that epitomous symbol of just war, saw much evil on both sides. The Nazis had to be defeated. They were murdering human beings by the millions. The Japanese empire wasn’t any better. And yet, the Allies share their own sins – Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, internment camps, to name a few.

Inevitably, our justifications for war end up treating human lives as mere statistics. Ten can die that a thousand might live. More would have died if we hadn’t nuked Japan. This sort of think, to me, is abhorrent. It treats life as a strategic resource.

War assumes a genuine separation of us and them. It feeds on tribalism. Your people attacked our people, so we will avenge ourselves on you.

Pacifism also makes sense to me as a Christian. The Christian way is to conquer through submission, to love even our enemies.

Yet, there is another side to the issue. I recently read a post railing against pacifism. The post itself was quite deplorable. It treated pacifism as a sort of childish immorality. It acted as if this were some kind of easy question. Yet, something was said which carries a lot of weight for me. It is the same argument that holds me back from pacifism every time I hear it. It talked about the current situation in the Middle East. Civilians are rioting, trying to overthrow tyrants, and are being brutally beat down. Those who cannot defend themselves are being subjected to terrible violence, and we have the power to do something about it. Is it not an ethical duty for the strong to defend the weak?

I think it’s something of an illusion to think that any war has actually been fought for these reasons, but it remains at least a theoretical possibility, and one that strongly compels. At the very least, wars not fought for these reasons have had these results.

This makes becoming a pacifist a difficult, if not impossible, choice for me, but it doesn’t negate what was said at the beginning of this post. War is wicked and evil. War treats life as a matter of statistics, of us and them. But war also allows the strong to defend the weak.

In the end, I find myself befuddled. Either way I go seems to me a great evil, and I do not know how to decide between them.

Theology/Politics: That Monstrous United Nations (Some Vitriol)

There's a small group of people in the world today, almost entirely American, who have made something of a sport trying to tie current world events into the book of Revelation. Often, their reasoning is quite dubious - a beast with ten horns? Clearly a one world government with ten regions!¹

One of the favorite targets of these prognosticators is the United Nations. The UN is a world spanning power (never mind that it's powerless) and that looks kind of like a on world government, which we all know will be the government of the anti-Christ (see above). And, they like to point out, the UN wants to split the world into ten governmental regions (something I've never been able to confirm outside of their circles) and the Bible talks about a beast with ten horns that is so clearly a one world government with ten regions, the connections couldn't be more clear (ten being a very uncommon number and all).

That isn't to say I'm a fan of a one world government or anything. Often, entities that seek one world government are grasping and imperialistic (Ancient Rome, Hilter's Germany, etc.) and, even where they aren't, they would set up an inefficient, centralized system of government, which you all know I'm no fan of.

Heck, the UN is a far from perfect institution. Mostly powerless, where it does exert influence it often does more harm than good (look at affiliate organizations like the World Bank) but all this has nothing to do with poverty.

But the UN is no one world government, it's not even close, and even if it were, their reading of Revelation is dubious to begin with.

What the UN does do is tell countries (mostly ineffectively) what to do. Countries like the United States.

And that's the real reason they hate and fear the UN, because it has the presumption to tell the United States of America (God's Country after all!) what to do.²

_________________________________________________
1. Actually, since at least some of the point of Revelation (I think) is to prophesy historical patterns (as opposed to specific historical events) they can even be right, but not for the reasons they think.
2. I should say I don't think most people who follow these "interpreters" of Revelation have this view, I solely blame the "interpreters." I doubt even they are quite aware of it. This is simply a symptom of patriotism meaning more than faith in God.

Philosophy: Freedom as Limits

We are only free in that we have limits.


What do I mean?

A little over a month ago, I wrote a post on homosexuality, and on what I see as a mistake in how the debate about it is usually conducted. I got many responses to that post (protip: if you want your blog to get a lot of hits, write on something controversial) and, in response to one of those, I wrote a comment about the relationship between genetics and choice. 


As I said in that comment, genetics are, in one sense, predetermining of the kind of people we will be. It might seem, then, that where genetics controls us, freedom is absent. Yet, I contend, there is a much more complicated relationship here, and, speaking more broadly, a much more complicated relationship between limits in general and freedom. 


Typically, we think of freedom, and consequently choice, as the ability to be free from constraints. Often, this is a metaphysical reflection on a political reality. A person held back by the law from driving 100mph down a busy street is not, in one sense, free to perform that action. And there is some truth in this, an utterly predetermined being, with no choice whatsoever in its course of action (for example, a rock) would in no sense be free.


However, there is a flipside to this. In having limits, I have something to act against, and that in turn actually gives me choice. Take the above mentioned case of genetics - genetics gives me a certain sort of body, and that body gives me limits (I can't fly or run faster than a locomotive), yet at the same time it is only in terms of that body that I can make many of my choices (whether to type and this computer or go for a jog for example). Without the limits of a body, the choices of physical actions would be meaningless. Likewise, the law may prevent me from going 100mph (without consequences) but this in turn means I'm free to cross the busy street without fearing a car barreling over me at 100mph. 


This last case also relates to a further point, that limits not only make us free, but they make us free to flourish. This is particularly true in the case of morality. Whatever your views to the objectivity of morality, anyone would agree that a person who feels protected from murder will be more likely to thrive (even though the choice of murdering another is thereby cut off to him). 


Further, if we have in mind any view of human nature in which men are fallible and liable to fall into grave immorality, whatever system or training helps that nature to take hold of its passions and become thereby better able to follow morality, even though it blocks off the former bad choices, creates in the man another kind of positive freedom.


Thus, freedom, at least for humans, seems to always exist in light of limits. Limits are a precondition for genuine choice¹. 
_______________________________________________________________
1. I cannot claim these ideas as my own, though the specific expression of them, especially in terms of embodiment, is. I'm not sure exactly where I've picked up these notions, but I am aware that I have heard similar views advocated at various times and do want to give those individuals due credit to the best of my ability. It seems to me that Kant espouses something like this view in the last section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, though typical of Kant it is written in very obscure language that makes it hard to be sure. I've further heard a discussion of the difference between negative freedom (freedom from restraints) and positive freedom (freedom for a kind of action) given at certain times. One case was a Mars Hill Audio discussion, and another was in a discussion of the ideas of Phillip Blond. Finally, my wonderful Bishop and pastor Todd Hunter espoused a similar idea in a sermon while talking about training in virtue. This in turn, I am told, comes from Aristotle and can also be found in Anselm (and no doubt Aquinas). 

Politics: The Real Bias of the Media

"The Media¹ has a pervasive, absolute liberal agenda."

Sound familiar? Most of us have probably heard this claim levied at the media (or conservatism in the case of Fox). 

But is it true? Well, I think to a degree it is. No doubt many in the media do lean to the left, and whatever their intentions they cannot help but be influenced by their worldview. However, I do not think this is the most fundamental bias of the media.

No, the most fundamental bias in the media is a bias for sensation. Sensation gets attention. Attention gets money. That is why disasters, celebrity scandals and wars are its favorite topics. Moreover, I even think this is part of what often influences it towards progressivism, since progressivism overturns what is and is therefore much more sensational than "conservatism" (unless of course those conservatives are shouting and calling people Nazis).

1. I should note, that the very language of the Liberal Agenda, or any other generic mass noun "agenda" (the gay agenda, the religious right's agenda, etc.) is actually quite disingenuous as it implies that large, diverse groups of people have some unified agenda.

Politics: NPR's Ethic Violation (An Angry Rant)

You've probably heard by now if you watch the news - NPR has fired Juan Williams, one of their political analysts, for comments he made about Muslims on the O'Reilly factor. The comment made, by the way, concerned an honest expression of a reaction he sometimes has towards Muslims. He goes on to argue, against O'Reilly's nuttery, that we have to make the distinction between radical, militant Islam, and the rest of Islam.

I really don't have much to say about this, except that NPR's decision enrages me. His comments in no way effected his position as a news analyst for NPR, nor do they reflect on NPR. Further, they're not even bigoted (a distinction has to be made between "This is how I react to things sometimes" and "this is how one should react to things).

Frankly, I find what NPR has done to be disgusting. They supposedly fired Williams over an ethical violation, but in reality it is they who have committed the ethical violation. I don't care how disgusting they found his comments, if it did not effect his work at NPR, they had no business firing him. Doing so was dishonest of them as a news organization. They acted on the basis of their political bias, which is not, in theory, the duty of a news organization. They were apparently seeking to protect their reputation, but as far as I'm concerned they have only damaged it.

This isn't even mentioning the terrible way they went about his firing.

By the way, it's not that Juan Williams is some favorite of mine - I hadn't even heard of him before today. I'm even inclined to distrust people who are willing to go on the O'Reilly Factor - the pundits at Fox are all of them nuts. No, it's the principle of the thing.

NPR, you've really screwed up this time.


Here's the full segment from the O'Reilly Factor (try not to get to distracted by O'Reilly being a jerk).

Philosophy: Asking the Wrong Questions (About Homosexuality)

When faced with a difficult philosophical quandary, it is often important to investigate whether or not the right question is even being asked. All too often, it seems to happen that two sides of a debate end up talking past each other, or arguing on an issue that isn’t actually relevant to the question at hand.

One such irrelevant questions has become central in the debate about homosexuality in the public sphere – whether or not homosexuality is “natural.” By natural, I take most people to mean genetically determined, while the opposite camp would call it a choice.

But what are we trying to get at here? There is, of course, a purely scientific question of whether or not homosexuality is genetic, but that is not the question as it appears in public debate. Rather, it seems to me clear that what is being investigated is of a moral nature. In the end, what people are fighting about is whether homosexuality is wrong or right.

Given that this is really what the debate is, the question arises – is the genetic “naturalness” of homosexuality even relevant? It seems to me that both sides of the issue have assumed it is, but might they be making a mistake?

There are many “natural” things most people would still judge to be wrong. There are genetic diseases, for example, and it even seems that there are born sociopaths. Both of these things are genetically “natural” and both are things we would eliminate given the chance.

Conversely, many “unnatural” things are quite good. I think, for one, that most Americans think government is ultimately a good thing , yet government could hardly be called natural, and a cure for cancer, if we developed one, would similarly be “unnatural.”

So, let us imagine homosexuality is, in fact, simply a matter of choice. Would the game be up? Would gay-rights activists throw up their arms in despair and admit they were wrong all along? Of course not, because the question of whether it is right or wrong still stands.

Or imagine the opposite case – homosexuality is proved to be genetic beyond any shadow of a doubt, so thoroughly that no one thinks it can be disputed. Again, those who oppose homosexuality would continue to do so, because the question of right would still not be answered.

I have mostly avoided this particular topic on my blog, and, for the most part, I plan on continuing this policy, as I’m not much of a fan of being flamed. However, I wanted to, without coming down on either side of the issue, air my thoughts on this confusion.

Thank you, and have a good night. 

Politics: Democracy and Progressivism

Very good interview by Mars Hill Audio about the effects of Progressivism on Democracy. The intro is a little long, but the interview itself is fantastic and there's a lot of stuff in here that applies to Distributivism/Communitarianism.

Mars Hill Interview on Democracy and Progressivism 

Philosophy: To Strive and Flourish

Earlier, I wrote a blog post in which I advocated for decentralized government, in order to counter the dangers of fanatical Utopianism. However, even if the dangers of a centralized Utopia could be countered, it might still not be the ideal, for it remains possible that a necessary component of human flourishing includes a necessary component of achieving flourishing for oneself, which is what I believe the anti-Utopian is getting at when they claim that humans need striving. In the sphere of the virtues, for example, justice might demand that the rich man care for widows and orphans who cannot care for themselves, but it is important that this is a decision of his will. The law could force the rich man to take this action, and this might externally look the same as the case of the one who chooses to care for them, but this justice would be part of the system and not part of the rich man’s life. Thus, he would not be flourishing as an individual, and the law might actually be preventing him from becoming a just man.

Similarly, a man eating food he did not earn does not get the maximum good available from the meal. Certainly, he is nourished, his basic physical need being cared for, but the benefit of the satisfaction of having earned the meal is missing. Ultimately, a hungry man unable to work might need to be fed from the proceeds of another man’s labor, but if a centralized power gives every man food they have not worked for, they have the satisfaction taken from them by default. Instead, it seems better if help comes from those in immediate contact with the hungry man, who can give him only the help he needs and, if possible, help him to stand on his own that he might achieve the fully flourishing life [1]. Since, as mentioned before, a real Utopia would be the best environment for human flourishing, even if that included striving, the best a centralized power could do to create Utopia would be to do nothing, instead leaving it to individuals and local communities.

At this point, it may be asked why I have included local communities and not simply left everything to the individual. After all, if achieving something for oneself is part of flourishing, doesn’t local community interfere in this just as much as central government? However, this is not the case. First, the community is sensitive to the needs of the individual. The work put into a meal is not the only important part of it, other factors such as its satisfaction of hunger are also extremely important. It is better for a man who cannot work to eat a meal he has not worked for, than for him to starve. Ultimately, a local community is better suited to know when he needs charity, and when he needs rehabilitation. Also, in most cases an individual contributes to his community in ways he cannot necessarily contribute to a centralized system, and these are often intangible. The sickly widow may be unable to labor for her bread, but may provide an important area of emotional support in her community. The awareness of this in herself and her community creates a sense of reciprocity and this in turn provides the missing component of satisfaction. As a centralized body is necessarily detached from individuals, it cannot operate in terms of such intangible benefits and thus the component of reciprocity is removed.

[1] I originally considered this idea earlier in my blog, but it was recently brought to my attention that it is explored in the Thomistic principle of subsidiarity. I have not yet had the chance to study into this, so the arguments for it are essentially my own.

Note: As with my last post, this one was taken largely from an essay which I wrote for school (the same essay as the last one in fact)

Politics: The Dangers of Utopia and the Boon of Inefficiency

It is my firm conviction, brought about by the observation of history, that the dreams of Utopians are far more likely to drag us to hell than to build a better world. From Hitler’s Reich to the terrorism of Bin Laden, many of histories greatest evils have come from the pursuit of the perfect world. Really, Utopianism is a kind of hate. It identifies what I see as the perfect state for human kind, it becomes intoxicated with that vision, and then it cannot help but make that the end of all action, and in so doing come to see any who stand in its way as monsters and sinners. We all hope for a better world, that is our nature, and it is a fine thing to strive for that world, to work at it with sweat and tears, and most of all with love. But, when we try and make that world, to forge it by power, to force it on others for their own good, then we become Utopians and we soon become monsters.

The temptation for the Utopian is the temptation to think that the best way to achieve the ideal human circumstances is through exercising the influence of some strong centralized power, most notably that of government. In general, this view seems to arise from the appeal of efficiency. Where a thousand local agencies might work at cross purposes, sabotaging the formation of Utopia, a single central organization can organize these efforts and thereby seemingly better achieve the goal. However, it is precisely this efficiency that makes the temptation to centralization a liability.

At its heart the problem is the limits of our own knowledge, which in turn leads to a deep moral concern. As is frequently mentioned by moral philosophers, there is a great diversity of moral codes present in the world, ranging, for example, from cultures which practice female circumcism to keep women in their “proper” place to those which view women as equal to men. This doesn’t actually, as some claim, lead to the conclusion that the moral ideal is relative, but it does seem to show that it is very easy to go astray. Mistakes in this area are bad on a local and individual level, leading to ruined lives, but they are devastating when made by a centralized power. It is here that the moral problem comes into to the picture, as in the historical case of Soviet Russia, whose attempt to create a Utopia based on their view of flourishing human life led to the deaths of millions, and to economic damage from which the country is still suffering.

Thus, precisely the inefficiency of local attempts to make the world ideal seem to actually make these the ideal case. It is important here to make a distinction between inefficiency and incompetency. Local efforts to build a better world will still ideally make a difference, only doing so more slowly. Those communities which properly understand the good will see their members flourish more, while those which don’t will ultimately run into far more problems. As other communities see the success of the flourishing locality over the others, this will encourage them to adopt similar practices. This is more piecemeal, but it avoids the devastating consequences possible when a mistake is made by centralized power.

This, I argue, is one of many justifications for the distributionist and communitarian state. We cannot afford to build a legal and economic system on the basis of a centralized power that will too easily be co-opted by the machinations of Utopians seeking to make the world a better place… at any cost. In the human world of limited perspective and moral failure, inefficiency is a boon, not a detriment.

Note: Much of what was written here was originally explored by me in a paper for my Metaethics class in the Fall of 2009 (and, hey, I got an A on it, so I must have done something right)

Politics: Distributivism, It's Probably Not What You Think It Is

Politics come up with me in conversation. I don't think I aim for it, but it just seems to happen (so does Religion... thankfully I also seem to have a flame dampener around me... most of the time). 

"I'm a distributivist," I tell them, and, almost inevitably, they think it's some kind of cute term for socialism. It isn't, indeed its quite distinct. Here's a definition, taken from the website of distinguished distributivist John C. Médaille. He's got quite a detailed "encyclopedia of distributivism" if you want to know more.

"an economic theory... [it]ts key tenet is that ownership of the means of production should be as widespread as possible rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few owners (Capitalism) or in the hands of state bureaucrats (Socialism)"

There's of course a lot more to the theory, and it's further tied (typically) to communitarian/localist politics, which hold that government power, as much as possible, should be widespread and distributed (see the connection?). There's many justifications for this view, some practical and others moral. I've talked about it a few times here before, and plan to say more about it in the future, but there's your basic definition.

Life: Shifting Mind

It's interesting - I've been going back and labeling some of my older posts that don't currently have labels and I've noticed hos incredibly much my philosophy and especially my politics have shifted over the last couple of years. If for nothing else, that's a good reason to keep a blog.

Politics: Front Porch Republic

A few weeks back, a friend of mine introduced me to the Front Porch Republic after I'd mentioned I was interested in localization. Front Porch Republic is a group of folks (at least some of them trained political theorists) writing about localization, communitarianism and distributivism. 

I just started reading some of their posts, and while I obviously haven't read everything they've written, this has to be one of the most awesome blogs ever.

At the very least I recommend checking out their about section and reading 'A Republic of Front Porches' and 'What Our Hands Have Wrought'. 

Cheers. 

Politics: The Problem with Liberalism

A common criticism of conservatives is that they are paternalists, trying to make the world in their image by the sheer force of government power. Really though, it's far more often so-called-liberalism that brings about bigger government and reduction of freedoms in search of a dreamed of Utopia. One needs look no further than hate speech laws to see a vivid example of this.

Of course, in recent years conservatives have taken to trying to do the same thing. This whole business makes me angry. It makes me angry because I believe in liberty and it makes me angry because it doesn't work. We cannot make people moral by sheer force of law, morality is a matter of will. We cannot make utopia in a world as broken as the one we live in. We must strive for a better world, but with a realistic hope. The bloody utopian experiments of the last century should have shown us this. Ultimately, when we try and increase the powers of government to wield it for good, those powers end up in the hands of evil men (or corporation) who take advantage of the new power to increase oppression and injustice in this world.

The purpose of law, fundamentally, is to create a scaffold for society. Laws are moral, but they should consist of the bare bones necessary for maintaining order and civility. Laws, in other words, hold back anarchy just enough so that men can be moral and still survive.

Theology: Greed

Earlier, I posted on my Facebook a link to this blog post, and I shortly afterward received a message from a friend calling the contact of that blog as "junk". Now, let me first say that this friend of mine is an amazing Christian who has devoted his life to genuine service of God and others, but I don't agree that the above article is junk. Certainly, I don't agree with everything said therein (Bankers certainly shouldn't be shunned, for one), but I think it has a lot of points.

My friend suggested that I read Milton Friedman (which I'll hopefully have time to do some day). Since I respect this friend, I looked up Friedman and found the following video:




I fully, completely, totally agree with one thing Milton Friedman says - this world runs on greed.

This world runs on greed.

This world.


"And do not be conformed to this world..."(Romans 12:2)