Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Victorian revisionism

VICTOR REPPERT SAID:

I did not say anyone was blameworthy for not helping the poor. So I wasn't making a charge of being miserly. What I was saying is that under the circumstances private charity is not enough and that government involvement is a good thing.

I did not make it personal by what I said. I simply said that private charity seems not to be up to the task of taking care of human needs and that under some circumstances, government assistance is a good thing.

Anyway, you apparently accused me of a lack of personal generosity, without any facts about the situation to back it
up.

Reppert is now attempting to reinterpret his initial claims in a way that’s demonstrably at odds with his initial claims. This is what he originally said:

It would be wonderful it trickle-down actually worked, or if in particular Christians were so generous enough so that government action was not necessary. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Social Security was identified with Socialism when it was proposed, and it is sometimes attacked today as a Ponzi scheme. But I can't forget how much things better were for my mother and father, both political conservatives, once they started receiving it. In my childhood Medicare was attacked as Socialism, but again, it has made a huge difference to many people, including my parents.


Let’s work these statements into a consecutive argument, then compare his original argument with his revisionism:

i) Gov’t action is sometimes necessary.
a) Paradigm examples of necessary gov’t action: Social Security & Medicare.
b) Personal examples of beneficiaries: Reppert’s parents.
ii) Gov’t action [e.g. (a)] is sometimes necessary because Christians aren’t generous enough.

Let’s now compare his initial argument with his current spin:

I did not say anyone was blameworthy for not helping the poor.

Of course you did! You said that Christians aren’t generous enough. That’s a negative value-judgment.

So I wasn't making a charge of being miserly.

Of course you were! You said Christians aren’t generous enough. That would mean they’re miserly.

What I was saying is that under the circumstances private charity is not enough and that government involvement is a good thing.

And why is private charity not enough? Because (according to you) Christians aren’t generous enough.

I did not make it personal by what I said.

Of course you made it personal! You made it personal on two grounds: (i) You accused Christians in general of being insufficiently generous, and (ii) you used your own parents to illustrate the necessity of gov’t action.

I simply said that private charity seems not to be up to the task of taking care of human needs and that under some circumstances, government assistance is a good thing.

No, you didn’t simply say that. You gave a reason for why private charity isn’t up to the task: Christians aren’t generous enough.

Anyway, you apparently accused me of a lack of personal generosity, without any facts about the situation to back it up.

Two problems:

i) You accused Christians in general of lacking personal generosity without any facts about their individual situation to back it up. Spare me the double standard.

ii) I don’t have to know a thing about you. My accusation was a logical inference from the implicit structure of your own argument:

i) Gov’t action is sometimes necessary.
a) Paradigm examples of necessary gov’t action: Social Security & Medicare.
b) Personal examples of beneficiaries: Reppert’s parents.
ii) Gov’t action [e.g. (a)] is sometimes necessary because Christians aren’t generous enough.
iii) Reppert is a Christian.
iv) Reppert’s parents were worse off before they began to receive Social Security and Medicare.
v) Therefore, Reppert wasn’t generous enough in providing for the needs of his own parents.

10 comments:

  1. "I did not say anyone was blameworthy for not helping the poor.

    Of course you did! You said that Christians aren’t generous enough. That’s a negative value-judgment. "

    Hmm... I'm not with you there. He didn't say that Christians aren't generous enough; he said that Christians aren't "so generous enough so that government action was not necessary."

    He's claiming that he meant it like this: "Christians are not so generous that..."

    Similarly, I could say, "I'm not so generous enough to my church so that they can build a new building." That wouldn't be a criticism of me--I have no obligation (or ability) to give that much!

    But he phrased it awkwardly. "so generous enough so that" doesn't quite make sense, however you read it. If he meant what he claims, he should have said, "not so generous that".

    Do you not find it credible that he meant it that way? I do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jugulum,

    That still doesn't get Reppert off the hook for the simple reason that "generous" itself is a loaded term. Indeed, your example of "I'm not so generous enough to my church..." doesn't work, because it's ludicrous to speak about lack of generocity when the real problem is lack of net worth in the first place.

    In other words, generocity has nothing to do with it.

    BTW, generocity also implies that you had no obligation to do it. Am I generous for paying my bills? I think not. But I am generous if I give to a hurricane relief fund at work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “Reppert is now attempting to reinterpret his initial claims in a way that’s demonstrably at odds with his initial claims.”

    Before leveling a charge like that, wouldn’t it be better to first ask him for clarification?

    However clear his mental states might appear to you, he probably knows them far better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I should simply correct my claim, when I said that if Christians were generous enough we could avoid the need for government actions. I can see Steve's point that that implies that we could be generous enough, but are not. Now no doubt Christians, including myself, are less generous than they ought to be. And perhaps there would be less poverty if this were so.

    On the other hand, the Church has many obligations, such as spreading the Gospel throughout the globe, which I think means that the Church probably can't replace Social Security and Medicare.

    I simply did not have the ability to replace what Social Security and Medicare provided for my parents.

    Steve, I really do think you have run with a comment of mine, which I agree was not well-formed, and used it as a basis for a lot of attacks directed at me personally. At most I criticized the Christian Church, not some individual person, and I include myself in that criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Add to this, the fact that my parents paid into social security throughout their lives, and I do as well.

    Anyway, I will be more than happy to retract the charge against Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Church has many obligations, such as spreading the Gospel throughout the globe"

    Victor, I'd have to take issue with that line.

    It should have read "the Church has one obligation, spreading the Gospel throughout the globe."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doesn't your last argument commit the fallacy of division?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter,

    I agree, "generous" was a loaded term.

    Re: obligation
    It gets tricky in that Christians ought to be generous. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Welfare fits perfectly with the Calvinist ideology. People, being naturally selfish, inconsiderate SOBs, cannot be relied upon to help their fellow man. Therefore, we must impose upon the masses the cost of assisting the impoverished. Otherwise, they would die in the streets, which in at least some cases, would be an injustice. (Now, I'm sure you don't think everyone who suffers financial misfortune is an uneducated, trailer-trash, Jerry Springer-watching, Spam-eating slime, right?)

    There is no room in Calvinism for the sunny optimism that thinks that if man keeps ALL of his money, he'll naturally give it to 2 or 3 worthy souls who actually deserve assistance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. James provides the perfect example of someone who is clueless about every concept under the sun.

    It is not required that "we must impose upon the masses the cost of assisting the impoverished" under any Christian scheme, and especially not under the Calvinist scheme. Simple common sense here: Wouldn't it be better to treat the source of the problem?

    That is, because men are sinners and would therefore refuse (except by common grace) to do good, the cure for that is conversion. We therefore evangelize.

    This also touches a bit on something that Jugulum said, namely:

    ---
    It gets tricky in that Christians ought to be generous.
    ---

    True; but the question is what is the best way for Christians to help those in need? Is it to have the government steal money from some and dispose of it as wastefully as possible on a few select poor individuals who happen to vote the correct way? Hardly.

    Would it not be better to teach a poor man how to get out of his poverty rather than reward him with free money for remaining in it?

    There is a difference between caring for someone's immediate and pressing need (i.e., someone is about to starve to death and therefore needs food now) and forcing them to become dependent upon you forever. It is generous to rescue someone from immediate danger when you are not obligated to do so; but it is not generous for you to enslave him to your purse.

    ReplyDelete