Men have feelings too!

In certain prolife circles, the usual exceptions for abortion are “rape, incest, and the life of the mother.” This has become a stereotypical expression. I say “usual” in the sense that many prolifers make an exception in these cases. For some it’s just the life of the mother. For others it’s the trio.

Actually, I find the distinction between rape and incest somewhat odd. Isn’t incest a type of rape? I assume those who favor abortion in case of incest aren’t alluding to consensual incest between older siblings.

But let’s consider the politically and emotionally explosive example of rape in case of incest. It’s important, in ethics, to confront the hard cases.

One thing that strikes me about this discussion is how it’s always framed in sexist terms. It’s all about how a woman feels in that situation.

But what about pregnancies where a man’s feelings are involved? Why is that never discussed? Why the double standard?

Let’s take an example. Take a good husband. Maybe he’s balding and overweight. But he’s a loving, faithful husband.

Suppose the wife has an affair. She meets a man who excites her. Makes her feel young again. She has a good marriage, but it’s become routine. Rather dull.

Suppose, as a result of the affair, she conceives a child, and her husband finds out about the affair–as well as the child. Imagine his reaction. He feels a gamut of powerful emotions. His wife has betrayed his trust. He feels violated. Family is where we let our guard down. That leaves us vulnerable. He feels humiliated by the man who stole his wife right out from under him. He’s mad and sad at the same time.

He gave his life to his wife, and it’s too late to start over again as a teenager in high school.

So what should his attitude be towards the child? The child is the emblem of the adulterous affair. Does he therefore have a right to kill the child?

We can sympathize with the man’s outrage. Yet we expect men to exhibit a certain toughness. Life can be very unfair. Life can deliver a gut-punch. But after the initial shock, a man is supposed to suck it up and soldier on. He’s entitled to his feelings, but he’s not entitled to his actions.

Let’s continue this issue from another angle. Many prolifers who oppose abortion in case of rape nonetheless distinguish between saving the child and raising the child. They don’t think the rape victim should have to raise the child. They think it’s perfectly fine for the mother to put the child up for adoption.

And I’m not taking issue with that. But let’s extend that to my comparison. Suppose the cuckold husband takes his wife back. He forgives her. Tries to pick up where they left off.

Suppose, sometime after she gives birth to the child, she abandons the child. Walks out on the marriage. Returns to her adulterous lover. Leaves the illegitimate child with her husband.

What should the husband do with the kid? The kid is a constant reminder of what is wife did to him. A constant reminder of what another man did to him. And the kid isn’t even his kid–unlike rape. There is no preexisting bond.

But the fact remains that someone must raise him. Someone must be a father to the kid. The husband didn’t ask for this situation, but by the same token, the kid didn’t ask for this situation.

Should he put the kid up for adoption? I suppose that’s an option.

But haven’t circumstances made it the cuckold husband’s duty to raise the kid as his own? That’s unfair, but duty can obligate us to do things even under unjust circumstances. The child is still entitled to love, provision, and protection.

Sometimes we find ourselves in situations we shouldn’t be put in. But having been put in that situation, however unfair, we still have certain obligations. Indeed, in God’s economy, that’s a way in which God forces us to be virtuous. To do the right thing even when we’ve been wronged.  

The fixer

Crude7/24/2012 2:19 AM

This is one more reason not to be Catholic. The church of Rome can’t provide basic moral guidance on an issue this basic. Indeed, it is giving the wrong advice.

You shouldn't be a Catholic, because a Jesuit favors gun control? Really, this is a reason?

Steve, c'mon. Is it impossible for some particular Catholic to do something wrong or hold a wrong opinion, and for that not to somehow work into a "and THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is one more reason not to be Catholic" move? I mean, would a pro-gun-rights Catholic count as a reason to BE Catholic?

At this point I half expect you to pull something like "Conan O'Brien isn't very funny. Is he Catholic? Because if so, ONE MORE REASON NOT TO BE CATHOLIC." And to mean it! That level of insanity.

i) Fr. Martin’s position is hardly idiosyncratic. For instance, the USCCB takes a similar position. Where do you think the Fr. Martins of the world get their views in the first place? They are parroting the party line:

http://nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/gunsample.shtml

ii) From you we’re getting the stereotypical reaction of the loyal Catholic layman. The fixer. Catholic laymen often assume the role of fixer. Whenever an official representative of their denomination makes an embarrassing public statement, the fixer makes a bunny-ears hand sign behind the head of the foolish Catholic cleric or prelate, assuring us, with a wink and a nod, that that doesn’t count.

The lay Catholic fixer is typically a guy with far more sensible views than the views of the institution he serves. He agrees with us that of course the priest/monsignor/bishop/cardinal/pope is spouting nonsense, but somehow we shouldn’t hold that against The One True Church®

But this is upside down. The folks at the bottom are wiser than the folks at the top. So why not make Bill Donohue (i.e. The Catholic League) the next pope? Wouldn’t that be a signal improvement on the status quo?

Or, to paraphrase the late William F. Buckley, it often seems as if picking the first ten names from the phonebook would yield better results than the USCCB.

Also, holy hell. You need some more hyperbole over there? I am strongly in favor of gun rights. I reject idiotic attempts to limit people's right to possess handguns, to force them to register, I'm in favor of stand your ground laws. But this sort of thing is just going over the edge.

Look at Australia. They passed some draconian gun control laws. They were a stupid plan, and haven't helped much with their crime situation, by their own records. But it didn't turn Australia into a Mad Max style place. It just trampled their rights. You'd be better off saying it's an open invitation to the government to wreak mayhem, if they see fit.

Really, the guy's argument was easy to take apart, but you blew it because you've got this whole "Man do I hate the Catholic Church" thing going on, to the point where it blinds you. Granted, not to the sociopathic levels it hits Bugay, but still.

Your objection results from a careless reading of what I wrote, as well as a careless reading of what Fr. Martin wrote. Fr. Martin’s position doesn’t reserve gun possession for law enforcement officers. According to his pacifist interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, no one should be allowed to have guns. Not private citizens. Not police. Not FBI. Not US soldiers.

The last boy scout

I’m going to comment on this post.

Where is the Outcry from Theists Against the BSA's Policy of Discrimination against Nontheists?

I find it fascinating (and disturbing) that not one theist has responded to this post with a comment expressing disapproval of the BSA's policy.

i) If I’m interpreting the site meter correctly, The Secular Outpost doesn’t have a very high public profile. Just compare its stats to, let us say, The Volokh Conspiracy. Therefore, there’s no reason for Jeff to assume that most theists are even aware of his post.

ii) And even if they were, atheists don’t generally defend the civil liberties of theists–except for Muslims. Indeed, atheists often have policies that discriminate against theists. Therefore, why should Jeff expect theists to defend the civil liberties of atheists–if atheists are going to turn around and use their civil liberties to violate the civil liberties of theists? If you’re tolerant of those who are intolerant of you, they will win and you will lose. So the relationship is ultimately asymmetrical.

Not only is that a stupid reason, it would also be bigotry. Red heads would rightfully be offended and non-red heads would condemn that sort of bigotry.

i) Assuming (arguendo) that the BSA is bigoted, so what? Why is Jeff bothered by hypocrisy or bigotry? Is Jeff a moral realist?

I recall Jeff reviewing Michael Martin’s case for secular ethics. As I recall, Jeff thought Martin’s case was a failure. Does Jeff have a fallback argument for objective moral norms?

ii) Likewise, even assuming that some things are intrinsically right or wrong, why assume human beings can be wronged. We’re just animals. Why is it wrong for a primate to be a bigot? Why is it wrong for one primate to discriminate against another primate? Happens all the time in the wild.

iii) Jeff is also assuming that his analogy is relevantly analogous. But hair-color is hardly equivalent to ideology.

With that position statement in your head, I want you to now think about what defenders of moral arguments for God's existence typically say. They argue that, on the one hand, there is no ontological foundation for objective moral values if God does not exist, while, on the other hand, nontheists can lead moral lives. If they truly believe that nontheists can lead moral lives, then where is the outcry from these same apologists against the BSA's stated reason for discriminating against nontheists?

i) Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that the BSA policy is inconsistent, why assume that’s “bigotry”? Why think leaders of the BSA are that philosophically astute?

ii) More to the point, the fact that atheists can be moral doesn’t mean atheists will be moral. That’s not a prediction. It doesn’t create any presumption to that effect.

iii) Atheists are more likely to be moral in a culture that reinforces conventional Christian morality. To the extent that atheists are self-consciously atheistic, to the extent that atheists successfully secularize the culture, then to that extent they are less likely to be moral. They lack the same external or internal restraints. On the one hand, the traditional social sanctions are gone. On the other hand, they are taking their secular outlook to its logical conclusion.

Of course, Jeff might disagree with my definition of what makes someone moral, but that's beside the point inasmuch as he's attempting to attack the opposing position internally, on its own terms.

iv) Finally, one way atheists secularize the culture is to infiltrate institutions which were traditionally religious or religiously-conditioned, then secularize those institutions from within.

That way there’s nothing to push back against the atheist agenda. Indeed, they’ve dragooned the opposing institutions to further the secular agenda. Infiltrate, sterilize, then co-opt for your own purposes.

But what if someone says, "I don't care what some Christian apologists have written. I don't think nontheists are moral. I don't trust them." From that perspective, there is even more reason to allow nontheists to join the BSA. If nontheists are so 'morally defective,' then what better course of action than to allow them to join an organization which, other than its policy of discrimination against homosexuals and nontheists, promotes good moral values? If nontheists are morally handicapped, why not give them as much "moral support" as possible to ensure they turn into adults with the best kind of moral character?

i) To begin with, this fails to distinguish between scouts and leaders. Atheists won’t stop with scouts. They will insist that atheists assume leadership positions in the organization. A hostile takeover.

ii) In addition, the BSA won’t be allowed to indoctrinate members. That will be classified as “hate speech.”

Can you imagine a church or Sunday school group banning non-Christians or even just non-theists? Of course not! They welcome them. They view it as an opportunity for evangelism. By the same logic, then, why not view the BSA as an opportunity for moral evangelism, i.e., trying to get boys to develop the best kind of moral character?

That fails to distinguish between attendance and membership. To join an evangelical church, you’re generally required to make profession of faith. And the standards are higher for church officers.

The uncompromising compromiser

By calling me a moral subjectivist, Hays and Chan are identifying me with the position that objective moral facts do not exist. But as I pointed out, this is false. I have always argued in ethical matters based on a robust ethical objectivism. For example, in my article “Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive” (Philosophia Christi, 2009) I critique moral defenses of biblical genocide by appealing to the intuition that you ought never ever bludgeon babies (the NEBB intuition). I argued that the NEBB principle is an objective fact which is known synthetic a priori: “It is not simply that I cannot see how bludgeoning a baby could be a morally praiseworthy act; rather, I can see that it cannot be.” (34)

 

Given that I am an uncompromising moral objectivist, why would Steve be saddling me with moral subjectivism?

i) Rauser can distinguish between ethical subjectivism and ethical objectivism on paper, but in practice his position is purely subjective.

ii) His Philosophia Christi paper is a perfect illustration. In that paper he makes no effort to argue for the intrinsic evil of certain OT injunctions. Rather, he simply declares them to be in violation of universal absolute moral axioms.

It’s one thing to say something is axiomatically wrong, quite another thing to show it. Rauser’s position on this and other moral issues reduces to his personal feelings. He invokes moral intuition to rubberstamp his radical chic opinions. And much of that time there’s nothing very “universal” about his intuitions. Rather, they are strikingly culturebound and ethnocentric.

Second, Steve fails to recognize that he is hoist with his own petard. You see, we all have moral intuitions. And the Christian tradition has explained those intuitions as our grasping of a natural moral law through a form of general revelation (see, for example, Romans 2:14-15).

i) Rom 2:14-15 is, indeed, the locus classicus for natural law. However, that interpretation has been challenged by scholars like Jewett, Cranfield, Wright, Gathercole, and Zahn. Therefore, Rauser’s prooftext is not a given. He needs to do the exegetical spadework before he can lay claim to that passage.

ii) Moreover, even assuming the locus classicus, St. Paul would never cite natural law to say certain OT injunctions were intrinsically evil.

iii) Furthermore, a paradigmatic natural theologian like Aquinas would never cite natural law to say certain OT injunctions were intrinsically evil.

iv) For that matter, given Rauser’s notion of “inspired errors,” why does he even bother to cite Scripture? That’s the point of using one Scripture to disprove another Scripture? What’s the standard of comparison? Not Scripture.

Steve might look to C.S. Lewis’s famous appendix to The Abolition of Man for a succinct statement of what Lewis called “The Tao of Religious Morality”. In that appendix Lewis provides ample evidence for the universal recognition of moral norms through culturally formed intuitions.

The commonality is deceptive. For instance, you can say Hindus disapprove of murder. Yet that didn’t hinder them from burning widows alive (until Christian missionaries intervened). That’s because they didn’t classify sati as murder.

Likewise, you can say Muslims disapprove of murder. Yet that doesn’t prevent them from massacring the “infidel” or executing rape victims. That’s because they don’t classify jihad or honor-killings as murder.

This leaves Steve Hays on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he could continue to insist that he has no innate moral intuitions at all, in which case he finds himself on the horn of psychopathology. On the other hand, he could admit that he does have moral intuitions and they play a role in his moral reflection, in which case he finds himself in the same boat as the rest of us.

 

It’s your choice Steve. Are you a morally deficient psychopath or do you also reason ethically in part based on a moral intuition of the natural law?

i) I don’t have an antecedent objection to moral intuition or natural law. What I object to are Rauser’s purely promissory appeals to natural law and moral intuition. He doesn’t do the hard work of actually making a case for his ascriptions.

ii) And one of the problems with his flaccid appeal is that it cuts both ways. Proponents of abortion (to take one example) also use intuitive appeals.

iii) To the extent that I think moral intuition or natural law is sometimes valid, that’s only because I can embed that in the revealed doctrines of Scripture. If the Biblical God exists; if he designed man to function is certain ways, in harmony with his environment; if he endowed man with some tacit moral knowledge, then we at least have the underpinnings for ethical objectivism or natural law ethics.

Mind you, even that is purely programmatic.

iv) By contrast, Rauser is treating natural law or moral intuition as a free-floating criterion, sheared from revelatory foundations, to evaluate revelation. Not only does it lack the necessary grounding, but it actively uproots the only grounding it could possible have. 

Rauser flies by the seat of his pants, but his airplane is on fire.

The ethical subjectivist

As I mused on this question I returned to another. If Pat was in fact satirizing me, they why would he call me an ethical subjectivist? After all, as I noted in my article:

 

Obviously Pat knows I am a hard-nosed ethical objectivist if ever there was one. Consider, for instance, my rather uncompromising critique of traditional notions of biblical genocide based on our intuitions of absolute moral axioms.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/09/what-is-patrick-chan-really-up-to/

i) For the record, I think I’m the one, not Patrick Chan, who was first to slap the “ethical subjectivst” label onto Rauser. So if you want to blame someone, blame me.

ii) How funny that he claims to be a “hardnosed ethical objectivist,” then defends that self-classification by appealing to his moral “intuitions.” And he does so to repudiate objective Biblical norms.

Oh, sure, he can talk about “absolute moral axioms,” but that’s grounded in his subjective intuitions. So it’s no more “absolute” than how he personally feels about anything. That’s about as solid as bubblegum on hot pavement.

iii) And it’s not as if his “absolute moral axioms” are self-evident or universally shared. Indeed, it’s striking how so many of his axiomatic moral intuitions just happen to coincide with the politically correct orthodoxies of the liberal establishment. The sort of folks who sit on Human Rights Commissions or Human Rights Tribunals, persecuting evildoers like Mark Steyn. 

Randal Mengele

Randal Rauser is a civilized man. Far too civilized for OT ethics. Instead, he flies by his acute moral intuition. For instance:

By contrast, the spouse in the case I mentioned is a PVS patient. That means that the spouse has no sentient awareness and thus no self-identity, no aches, pains, hopes or fears...Consider again the scenario that prompted Steven’s comments. A couple of twenty year olds are honeymooning when one of them has a massive stroke and is left in a coma with all higher brain function permanently lost. The one that is in a coma will now live for perhaps the next sixty years in a hospital bed with no conscious life at all. Is the other spouse morally obliged to stay with the spouse that is in a coma?

http://randalrauser.com/2011/09/marriage-ethics-and-the-new-ascetics/

From what I’ve read, PVS is a somewhat fuzzy diagnosis. The physician can’t get inside the mind of the comatose patient. So it’s just an educated guess.

But for the sake of argument, let’s play along with Rauser’s characterization. This raises a range of neglected medical opportunities. Suppose Rauser’s wife suffers a massive stroke which leaves her comatose. Upstanding bioethicist that he is, Rauser donates his wife to medical science. There are so many things that can be done with her.

Her comatose body could be harvested for organs. She could be infected with deadly diseases, then experimental drugs could be administered.

Her arms, hands, fingers, and feet could be amputated to replace the lost limb or digit of an accident victim, while the rest of her is kept on the ventilator for other uses. And you could operate on her without sedation. Save the expense of an anesthesiologist.

She could be used as an involuntary surrogate mother, or involuntary prostitute.

Up until now, med students have been limited to cadavers. Think how much more they could learn by cutting open comatose patients and fishing around.

Suppose the hospital catches on fire. Orderlies should save the sentient Wistar lab rats rather than the comatose patients.

Rauser’s bioethical philosophy resembles a cross between Dr. Mengele and the Saw film franchise. It’s truly inspiring.

Desertion in time of need

The first is a brief response to Steve Hays of Triablogue. I feel obliged to respond to Hays, however briefly, because the poor fellow seems desperate for some attention. He keeps saying outrageous things about me. And even though I ignore him, he keeps prattling on like that persistent rattle in an aging Chrysler van.

Oh dear. The poor boy is suffering from hyperthermia. Can’t stand the heat.

Am I saying outrageous things about Rauser? Or is Rauser saying outrageous things?

Steve Hays summarized my position under the heading “Dump your ailing spouse.” I never said “dump your ailing spouse.” But I do advise dumping Mr. Hays’s moral commentary.  And I also think that a three year chaplaincy internship at a busy hospital would do Mr. Hays a world of good. Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing for all the poor patients that would be subjected to his “care” during those three years as he slowly worked through all his personal demons.

It’s very funny to see Rauser try to seize the moral high ground when he’s the one defending divorce in case your spouse becomes senile. Imagine the kind of counseling he’d dish out as a hospital chaplain.

First the background. I wrote a sympathetic commentary on Pat Robertson’s commentary on Alzheimer’s Disease which focused on Grant’s dilemma (from the film “Away from Her”). In the scenario the Alzheimer’s of Grant’s wife Fiona has progressed to such a degree that she no longer knows her husband. To make matters worse, she is now in a romantic relationship with a new beau at the extended care facility. I asked whether Grant was morally obliged to maintain his matrimonial ties to Fiona under these conditions and I suggested that he need not be.

Randal already admitted that in her state of diminished responsibility, Fiona didn’t really commit adultery–since she lacks the intellectual capacity to form adulterous intent. As such, there’d be no grounds to divorce her for infidelity.

What about the fact that a senile wife no longer recognizes her husband? Does that dissolve the husband’s obligations to his ailing wife?

It’s easy to dream up far-fetched hypotheticals. Suppose my wife has an identical twin sister. Suppose my sister-in-law is mad at my wife for whatever reason. Suppose, to get back at my wife, my sister-in-law impersonates my wife. She deceives me into sleeping with her. Does that dissolve the marriage? Does that nullify my spousal duties to my wife?

What if our marriage was already on the rocks, and I use this incident as a pretext to divorce my wife. Is Rauser okay with that scenario?

Let’s take a more realistic hypothetical. This all got started with Robertson. He’s been married to the same woman for over 50 years. She stood by him all these years. What if she becomes senile? Is it okay for him to abandon her in her time of greatest need? When she needs him more than ever?

And we could apply this more broadly. What about the obligation of grown children to care (as best they can) for senile parents. What if they no longer recognize their children? Is it permissible to disown your senile parents?

What about the obligation of a grown brother to care for his kid brother with Down Syndrome. His parents cared for him until they died. Is it now his big brother’s duty to assume that demanding responsibility?

What if your best friend comes down with brain cancer. He no longer knows who you are. He says and does things to you which, if he were in his right mind, would betray the friendship. Is it okay to stop being a friend to him now that he can no longer be a friend to you?

This raises general questions about sacrificial love. What if caring for a helpless friend or family member means that we must deny ourselves something that gives us personal fulfillment? What gives? Rauser has already indicated his own priorities. But hey, he’d make a swell hospital chaplain. 

Church of uncertain

The world's smallest violin

Randal Rauser has an interesting set of moral priorities:

• He agonizes over the morality of eating a turkey

• He plays violin for convicted cop-killer Troy Davis

• He defends divorcing your wife of 50 years if she comes down with Alzheimers

This is a man whose moral intuitions trump Biblical ethics. Funny how that works out. 

Infidel action figure (brain not included)

THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:

Daryl was obviously a sociopath, like roughly 5% of the general population (though the vast majority of sociopaths enever kill). I commend a reading of Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door for those interested in this kind of behavior.

Daryl is a calculating rationalist. He begins with a popular secular premise, then conducts himself accordingly.

Premise: This life is all there is, so make the most of it.

So he’s prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to achieve that objective so long as he can get away with it.

But if you wish to treat atheism as synonymous with psychopathology and sociopathology, who am I to differ?

What can an atheist say to convince Daryl that he did anything truly and objectively evil? Well, most of us (i.e. the non-sociopaths) would tell him that what he did was nasty. But the key is that we would be making our own moral judgment based on our evolved instincts and learned moral judgments.

i) Evolutionary ethics is fraught with philosophical problems:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/

ii) At best, evolutionary psychology fosters the illusion of right and wrong:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ruse.htm

What you Bibleists fail to realize is that even if you decide to follow the moral precepts of some holy book or priest, you are still making your own judgments. Each individual has inevitably to rely on their own individual moral compass - their own sense of right and wrong - in weighing up to whom they should listen and whether to accept the moral advice they are given: Law (ibid, p. 79).

I already dealt with that objection in my review of The Christian Delusion, where Hector Avalos trots out the same lame argument. Try again.

I don't not profess to have any expertise in Calvinism but Maharashi Rauser wrote on his blog today that: Not only did God predispose human persons to behave in certain ways, but he is the primary cause of their acting the way they do. based on this view, Daryl should either blame lordy for his nasty predispositions or, better yet, just sincerely repent on his deathbed and receive a metaphysical "get out of jail free" card.

I’ve frequently dealt with moralistic objections to predestination. Either present a counterargument or shut up.

Also, don’t bother to come back here unless and until to you can tackle the problems with evolutionary ethics in the linked material. No free lunch for infidels.

Moral clarity

Sic:

RD RAUSER SAID:

Close to forty years ago Singer wrote a powerful paper in ethics on the culpability of rich people in allowing the poor of the world to die. And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy. Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat.

1/11/2011 7:07 PM 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/01/atheism-is-evil.html#66293892364126666

Et non:

randal says:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 11:21pm

Years ago Tony Campolo asked whether a Christian should drive a BMW. It’s a decent rhetorical starting point but surely any attempt to answer that question seriously would be bound to fall into a damnable legalism.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/parable-of-the-good-atheist/