(Etienne Dinet. Children skipping. Source)
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
(Etienne Dinet. Children skipping.
Source)
Note: This exchange occured long before I read a good book on the death penalty.
1) Mister X9 (2008-January-28)
2) S. Jetchick (2008-January-29)
3) Mister X9 (2008-February-08)
4) S. Jetchick (2008-February-08)
5) Mister X9 (2008-March-05)
6) S. Jetchick (2008-March-08)
7) Mister X9 (2008-March-08)
8) S. Jetchick (2008-March-15)
9) Mister X9 (2008-March-21)
10) S. Jetchick (2008-March-28)
-----Original Message----- From: Mister X9 Sent: 28 janvier 2008 21:29 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: RE: Contraception? Dear Stefan, [...] >> >> I think I've seen an inconsistency in one of your arguments. >> >> OK, I've found a good book on this, and ordered it: >> >> Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later I admire your speed and dedication! >> The basic argument is this, I think. >> >> First, of course you are right that you can act >> immorally, whether with or without the pill. PREMISE A >> A couple that >> selfishly pursues carnal pleasure while doing everything >> it can to avoid pregnancy, is sinning, and it doesn't >> matter a whit whether they are using pills, or NFP >> (Natural Family Planning), or aluminum foil and >> chili sauce for that matter! (I'm inventing new >> contraceptive methods!) Distinguo: If you intend to develop this further, can you define what you mean by "selfishly". i) What does the negation "A couple that selflessly pursues carnal pleasure while doing everything they can to avoid pregnancy" mean? ii) Is "A couple that selfishly pursues carnal pleasure while doing a lot, but not everything, they can to avoid pregnancy" also sinning? Where and why do you ascribe limits? PREMISE B >> We are assuming the case of a couple with many children, >> unwilling to accept another child for the time being, for >> lack of money, etc. Concedo >> Even then, contraception is not morally equivalent to >> NFP. With NFP: >> >> "When couples are abstaining during the fertile period they >> are not thwarting the act of sexual intercourse since they >> are not engaging in sexual intercourse. >> When they are engaging >> in sexual intercourse during the infertile period they are >> not withholding their fertility since they do not have it to >> give at that time. >> They learn to live in accord with the natural >> rhythms of their body. In a word, use of NFP may involve >> non-procreative acts, but never, as with contraception, >> antiprocreative acts." >> [Source] Quotation are dangerous, they can turn round a bite you! The use of the terms "non-procreative" and "antiprocreative" is not justified here, nor could I see a definition elsewhere in the text. (Until proof otherwise...) It seems that the author is simply trying to wriggle out of the contradiction by saying "four-legs good, two- legs bad". This aside, given the couple you described above, if they decide to use either "natural family planning" or a "condom": a) The intent is the same: they want to have sexual intercourse without having a child. b) The result is the same: a very small chance of pregnancy. (Janet Smith does a good job of selling the efficiency of the latter method: "Natural Family Planning is not the outmoded rhythm method, a method which was based on the calendar. Rather, NFP is a highly scientific way of determining when a woman is fertile based on observing various bodily signs. The couple who want to avoid a pregnancy, abstain from sexual intercourse during the fertile period. The statistics on the reliability of NFP rival the most effective forms of the Pill. And NFP is without the health risks and it is moral.") Now, it seems to me that the intent and the result are the two important factors in morality. If you intend to kill someone it is immoral, even if you do not succeed. Likewise, if you actually kill someone it is immoral, even if it is unintended. The method you employ in killing the unfortunate person is of little import, and can only add to the gravity of the immoral act. The question is, then, whether (a) and (b) are immoral or not. If you say they are moral, then we are left with arguments that "natural family planning" is a better form of contraception. This, however, does not invalidate other forms. Of course, if you maintain that (a) and (b) are actually immoral, then "natural family planning" must be proscribed with other forms of contraception. Yours, Mister X9
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 30 janvier 2008 00:22
To: Mister X9
Subject: RE: Contraception?
Dear Mister X9,
>> i) What does the negation "A couple that selflessly pursues carnal
>> pleasure while doing everything they can to avoid pregnancy" mean?
Nothing. English is a "natural language". You can't
necessarily take any random word, flip it around, and expect
the sentence to still make sense. Before you scrutinize
a statement with your logical tools, you sometimes need to put it
in "Canonical form".
Example:
"This appropriate Robertson #2 screwdriver is just the one
I need"
This sentence is logically equivalent to:
"This appropriate, i.e. Robertson #2, screwdriver is just the one
I need"
The word "appropriate" is explained by the subsequent technical
mumbo-jumbo ("Robertson #2"). In other words, both parts of that
sentence have the same meaning. So if you negate one of those
parts, you get gibberish:
"This inappropriate Robertson #2 screwdriver is just the one
I need"
Doesn't make sense. Does that mean "appropriate" was meaningless
or ill-defined in the original sentence? I don't think so.
I think the original sentence in more "canonical form" would
look more like:
"A couple that pursues carnal pleasure while doing everything
they can to avoid pregnancy is a selfish couple."
>> ii) Is "A couple that selfishly pursues carnal pleasure while doing a
>> lot, but not everything, they can to avoid pregnancy" also sinning?
>> Where and why do you ascribe limits?
In other words:
Assuming there is a kind of continuum between good and
evil carnal union between a man and a woman, such that
we can "turn up the heat of evil" gradually, when does
the "temperature" hit "sinful"?
Offhand, I would say that your question is a complicated way of
asking: "Is the contraceptive pill immoral?"
To answer such a question properly, we need (at the very least)
to have the following tools:
- What is morality?
- What are the sources of morality (i.e. the intention,
the circumstances and the nature of the act).
- Does the end justify the means?
- Does a good mean guarantee that the end will also be good?
- Is there really a continuum between good and evil? Or
is it more like discrete steps, rather than a gradual ramp?
- Etc, etc.
>> Quotation are dangerous, they can turn round and bite you!
Mine are well-trained. They brush their teeth three times a day,
and teach, not bite!
>> The use of the terms "non-procreative" and "antiprocreative" is not
>> justified here
Yes it is.
>> nor could I see a definition elsewhere in the text.
Quite possible. I tried to find the complete text of Ms.
Janet E. Smith's book on the Internet, but didn't find it.
I suspect the hyperlink I gave you is some kind of
summary she wrote for her book. Amazon claims her actual
book is nearly 500 pages long, so I assume some things
are missing.
No harm done, we'll work it out together.
Let's take a metaphor: a skipping rope. I assume you've
at least once seen children playing with a skipping
rope, where they stand back, and "time their entry"
so they can "jump in" and start skipping.
In this metaphor:
- The cyclic turning of the skipping rope is the
woman's natural fertility cycle.
- If you don't jump in time and the rope hits your
feet, the couple gets pregnant.
- If you jump in time, you can make love but won't
get pregnant.
- If you cut the rope with scissors, you can't
get pregnant either.
Of course, metaphors don't prove anything, but they can help
us understand.
1) If a couple is in a situation where they don't have a
reason to avoid the rope, then both skipping
and cutting are bad. (In other words, assuming a bad end,
no mean leading to that bad end can be good.)
2) If a couple is in a situation where they have a good
reason to delay the next child, then they should
avoid the rope. (In other words, let's assume a good end.)
3) If cutting the rope is an intrinsically bad act, then
they need to skip, not cut. (In other words, you need to use
a good mean to a good end.)
>> a) The intent is the same: they want to have sexual intercourse
>> without having a child.
Yes (we assume #2 here above).
>> b) The result is the same: a very small chance of pregnancy.
Yes.
But the means to the end are not the same.
As you can imagine, everything depends on #3 here above. If
respecting the natural cycle of the rope is a good mean, and
cutting the rope is an intrinsically bad mean, then skipping
is good, cutting is bad.
Now, let's stop jumping up and down and leave the metaphor. Many
things need to be verified. I'm assuming you grant me that
taking a bad mean to a good end is bad, and that taking a good
mean to a bad end is bad, and taking a bad mean to a bad end
is bad too.
I'm also assuming you grant me that there is a difference between:
(x) taking the pill and doing the marriage act, and (y) not taking the
pill and avoiding the marriage act when fertile.
This difference is a fact. There is a real physical difference
between (x) and (y). Now, is this difference enough to
say (x) is immoral and (y) is not? I guess that is where we
might not yet agree.
In a way, this links up directly with my debate with Guillaume
Loignon. Let's go back a bit to our metaphor. Assuming God exists,
and assuming God expresses His will by giving us the bodies He
has given us, then "cutting" our bodies is going against God's will,
while "skipping" with their natural cycles can be quite good,
since God Himself wills that rope to turn round and round.
Leaving the metaphor aside, the pill (or the condom, or any other
such device) is an actual physical intervention designed to rid
the marriage act of one of its natural finalities. It goes against
procreation (hence the term "anti-procreative").
NFP does not touch the marriage act, it leaves it intact, the way
God indended it: sometimes fertile, sometimes not, but always good
to increase the bonding between husband and wife (hence the term
"non-procreative").
But once again, I've never read Janet E. Smith's book, so I
don't have all the arguments. Also, none of this can make sense
for an Atheist (since for him there is no such thing as "God's
will expressed in our bodies"). And even if one is not an
Atheist, we are constantly bathed in such an Atheistic culture
that the very thought of "looking for signs of God's will in
our bodies" probably feels strange to most people.
>> Now, it seems to me that the intent and the result are the two
>> important factors in morality.
Actually, as stated above, it's:
- the very nature of the act.
- the intention.
- the circumstances.
>> If you intend to kill someone it is
>> immoral, even if you do not succeed. Likewise, if you actually kill
>> someone it is immoral, even if it is unintended. The method you
>> employ in killing the unfortunate person is of little import, and can
>> only add to the gravity of the immoral act.
Concedo, of course!
>> The question is, then, whether (a) and (b) are immoral or not.
(For dim-witted readers like me who couldn't remember what (a) and (b)
stood for:
(a) The intent is the same: they want to have sexual intercourse
without having a child.
(b) The result is the same: a very small chance of pregnancy.)
As I indicated, you're missing an element: the means to (a) and (b).
Hope all this keeps you confused long enough for me to get and
read that book!
;-)
Cheers!
Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Mister X9 Sent: 8 février 2008 12:17 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: [...] [...] PS: A simple observation on an excerpt from Mr. Jim Hnatiuk letter: "An asset to the party, I believe, would be the experience, training and leadership skills that I acquired in my twenty-five years of military service. As well, my character, stamina and loyalty to God's Word have been tested many times over the past thirteen years in my church ministries as youth leader, elder and in my current position as deacon." It seems to me that: A) twenty-five years of military service AND B) loyalty to God's Word AND C) thou shalt not kill Do not work together. Even if he has never killed anyone, being a member of the army means that you agree to, and are willing to, kill. [...]
[...] >> being a member of >> the army means that you agree to, and are willing to, kill. Concedo. Actually, I use that argument all the time against pseudo-Catholics: "If you are a member of a church that teaches things which you consider immoral, you are immoral. You need to leave, or change the teachings of that church!" >> A) twenty-five years of military service >> B) loyalty to God's Word >> C) thou shalt not kill >> Do not work together. Everything hinges on how you work out the details of your statement (C) (which of course all Christians accept in its general, obvious sense). Is legitimate defense permitted by Natural Law? If not, one crazy person armed with a potato peeler could kill absolutely everybody, since no policeman could ever shoot him! ;-) (For the actual details of why Legitimate Defense is morally OK, see: The Principle of double-effect Assuming now Legitimate Defense is morally OK, we extend the example to a country attacking another country. Presto, the Principle of double-effect can, at least theoretically, apply on a grand scale: All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. [CCC, #2308 and #2309] Finally, the Bible requires some skill to interpret correctly. For example, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is sometimes worded slightly differently in the Bible: "the innocent and the righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked" [Ex 23:7] By the way, that is why Catholics scrupulously use the expression: "innocent human person" when condemning abortion. Hope that helps, Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Mister X9 Sent: 5 mars 2008 08:54 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: RE: Discussion [...] >> Sooooo, when are you coming with me to hand out political >> flyers? [...] I don't think I can work directly for the CHP. I have had a look at their policies, and have taken a few which I am deeply opposed to. "7.2.1. MONARCHICAL That the unity and continuity of the state and the nation is personified in the Sovereign - above all parties and factions - in whose name and by whose historic powers the executive functions are performed." I am opposed to monarchy for it goes against the principle of equality of all people. This extends to presidents (who generally have more power than constitutional monarchs). *** More importantly:**** "6.7.5 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT We affirm that man was created in the image of God and therefore all human life should be protected by laws that require the ultimate deterrence and punishment for the shedding of innocent blood. Government has a God-given responsibility to use its power to punish those who commit crimes and to protect those who are innocent. The law should provide for justice which includes capital punishment for those who commit first-degree, premeditated murder." To kill someone who is entirely under your power is a crime. The state has no claim to self-defence against an individual it is holding prisoner. Furthermore, capital punishment robs the guilty individual of any chance of redemption, of realising the harm they have done and asking forgiveness. If this only happens once in a hundred it is still worth it. And if you there is a miscarriage of justice, you kill an innocent person. We can argue this through. Nevertheless, I think that capital punishment is in fundamental contradiction to: "6.3.1. SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE We affirm that human life exists and is sacred from conception and has God-given value, regardless of race, age, gender, or physical or mental handicap (1). We believe that the human body is the property of God, and that no one but God has the authority to terminate human life except in accord with the express provisions of the Bible (2). No person, institution, or government shall tolerate, encourage, or decree death by means such as abortion, euthanasia, or suicide." (1) Ex.4:11, (2) Gen.9:6; Lev.24:17, Gal.3:17 Of course, after criticising the CHP, I shall need to have another look at Quebec Solidaire's policies ... Yours, Mister X9
Hello Mister X9, >> I have had a look at their policies [...] and have taken a few >> which I am deeply opposed to. Well, maybe you've seen something I've missed. Let's take a look. >> 7.2.1. MONARCHICAL >> That the unity and continuity of the state and the nation is personified I was wondering where the heck this "monarchy" thing came from! Then I read the hyperlink. OOOOhh, so you just mean the historic presence of the Queen on our currency? OK, you scared me for a second! As far as I know, the CHP is not asking for any change to our current situation in Canada, which is to say the Queen is just a symbol. The rest of #7.2 confirms that. >> I am opposed to monarchy for it goes against the principle of >> equality of all people. You're confusing two things: human dignity (which we all possess equally), and hierarchic authority (which some of us have more, and some less, for the good of society). A society cannot exist, if there are only chiefs, and no indians. As far as monarchy goes, there are social circumstances where a monarch is a good form of government. But as a society gets richer and as the masses get more educated, democracy becomes more appropriate. Neither the CHP nor me claims Canada should not be a democracy! Maybe re-reading Rousseau's definition of "equality" might help. >> To kill someone who is entirely under your power is a crime. It depends what you mean by "entirely under your power". Strictly speaking, I agree with you: Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [Catechism of the Catholic Church #2267] But there are circumstances where the only way for society to protect itself is to kill the offender. "Entirely under your power" can mean: "We arrested him, but how long will we be able to control him?" Think of a powerful dictator who controls the courts, jails, police, etc. If somehow he gets arrested and condemned by an honest judge, he will escape from jail and come back to kill many more innocent civilians. The State would have a right to protect itself against such a criminal. >> Furthermore, capital punishment robs the guilty individual of any >> chance of redemption Of course I agree with you, when you quote almost word-for-word the Catechism! (See above) >> I think that capital punishment is in fundamental contradiction to: >> >> 6.3.1. SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE >> We affirm that human life exists and is sacred from conception and >> has God-given value No, for reasons given above. >> after criticising the CHP, I shall need to have another look >> at Quebec Solidaire's policies ... You're kidding! You mean, you would actually try to be consistent? ;-) Seriously, here is a quote from the official CHP "Position Statement" on the Death penalty: "the CHP policy would result in very few executions. (A review of murder convictions since 1974 reveals only three who might have been eligible for execution - Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka" [...]) [Candidate Policy Handbook, March 2007, tab 21, p. 2, ] Abortion kills about 400 innocent human persons a day, right here in Canada. And abortion is, as you well know, stridently and blasphemously supported by Quebec Solidaire. And you are a card-holding member... Now for your Principles of a political discussion group. I don't know if you want me to post it here, but I can give you a few general remarks. Basically, of course, I agree with much. Some of the things I don't agree with are the claim that "leaders are not necessary", and the implicit claim that "discussion is more fundamental than clear, rock-solid and immutable truths on Morality". "Leaders are not necessary": as long as action is not necessary. If you want to gab and drink beer, unity of command is not necessary. Politics, by definition, is related to action. So insofar as your group will tend away from a pure discussion group, and try to act politically, it will require a leader. "Discussion is more fundamental than moral principles": I can't avoid seeing this as some kind of divinization of discussion, after having gotten rid of Christ, the real God. The very concept of discussion means the problem being discussed is appropriate for discussion, i.e. that opposing views on the topic are tolerable: Mais comme il peut y avoir plusieurs moyens honnêtes d'atteindre ce but, et qu'en matière contingente et pratique, nul n'est infaillible, la diversité des partis peut se justifier par une divergence raisonnable d'opinions. [Précis de philo, No. 1357] Some things must be accepted by all, otherwise they are unfit for participation in politics. Basic moral principles are a necessary start, according to me. In Christ, Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Mr. X9 Sent: 8 mars 2008 20:44 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Further correspondance of Mr X9. Dear Stefan, Thanks for your reply. I am sending my thoughts on capital punishment, as I think this is the most important thread of argument. You have also raised an important line of argument on monarchy and equality. I suggest we note these and return to them at a later date. But to begin with I will reply to the other points of your last letter. [...] >> "Leaders are not necessary": as long as action is not necessary. If >> you want to gab and drink beer, unity of command is not necessary. >> Politics, by definition, is related to action. Concedo: Action requires co-ordination, which requires leadership. However: A lot of time and energy is wasted on electing individuals in political parties. This often results in bad blood between certain members, which undermines the effectiveness of the organisation. Furthermore, climbing up a party hierarchy can become a goal in itself for politicians, with the consequences this entails. >> So insofar as your group >> will tend away from a pure discussion group, and try to act politically, >> it will require a leader. Distinguo: it will require leadership. I think this can be done (as far as a political organisation is concerned) through randomly selecting a council (or councils) from the members of the party. Such a council would sit for the time required to finish a specific task, and then be dissolved. This will remove the time wasted in elections, and avoid the organisation being controlled by career politicians. Clarifications: 1) Obviously, one cannot select ONE leader at random, as there will always be people who will not be up to the task. But if one selects a group of people then you will have a balance. Indeed, you will have good people sitting on a council who would not be inclined to put themselves forward for election. 2) The system of meetings would need to prepare the members to be able to work efficiently in such a council. 3) There may be situations when this system is not appropriate. Other mechanisms will need to be devised for these. >> "Discussion is more fundamental than moral principles": I can't avoid >> seeing this as some kind of divinization of discussion, after having >> gotten rid of Christ, the real God. Concedo: You have perceived the shadow of a danger. Discussion is the method with which we can ascertain moral principles (via natural law), just as science is the method to ascertain physical laws. The method is important, but it is just the method. >> The very concept of discussion means >> the problem being discussed is appropriate for discussion, i.e. that >> opposing views on the topic are tolerable: Distinguo: What do you mean by «tolerable». I think I understand you, but would like to be sure. Distinguo: Of course arguments we know to be unfounded will need to be heard. The scientific analogy works well here: when school- children learn that objects fall at the same rate, regardless of weight, it is usually good to do the experiment. It is counter- intuitive, and children don't believe it till they see it. Similarly it is necessary to show an adult why they are wrong, rather than just presenting them with the results that have been arrived at. ***Further Correspondance of Mr X9:*** Capital punishment: >>> To kill someone who is entirely under your power is a crime. It >>> depends what you mean by "entirely under your power". Strictly >>> speaking, I agree with you: [CCC, #2267] Concedo: I agree with the Catechism on this point. Distinguo: Can you clarify you position here. Are you in favour of bringing back the death penalty to Canada at the present time? >> But there are circumstances where the only way for society to protect itself is >> to kill the offender. "Entirely under your power" can mean: "We arrested him, >> but how long will we be able to control him?" Think of a powerful dictator who >> controls the courts, jails, police, etc. If somehow he gets arrested and >> condemned by an honest judge, he will escape from jail and come back to kill >> many more innocent civilians. The State would have a right to protect itself >> against such a criminal. Distinguo: I think you are using the wrong argument here. This argument can be used to justify political assassination of a tyrant: a death penalty passed by a revolutionary court, or government in exile for example. However, this is a weak case as regards capital punishment in Canada for the following reasons: Firstly, Canada is not a dictatorship at present. Secondly, you need to back it up with historical evidence if you want to make it stand. When has the above circumstance actually occurred? What were the results? Were they avoidable? Thirdly, a "powerful dictator controls the courts, jails, police, etc." would not be arrested and tried unless he lost his power. But if he has lost his power, then he is no longer a threat, so there is no need to kill him. Take the case of Saddam Hussein. His execution was unnecessary as he could have easily been imprisoned in the United States, Great Britain, or the Hague, with no chance of returning to Iraq. Why hang him? It seems clear to me that it was a case of political vengeance. But vengeance, and the hatred it entails, are not something to base a system of justice on. Fourthly, when you say "We arrested him, but how long will we be able to control him?" and "...he will escape from jail and come back to kill many more innocent civilians..." you are appealing to possibilities, not facts. But if you are able to give him a fair trial, it shouldn't be difficult to make sure he is properly guarded. Of course, an historical example would be useful here. [...] >> Seriously, here is a quote from the official CHP "Position Statement" >> on the Death penalty: [Candidate Policy Handbook, March 2007, tab 21, p. 2, ] It hardly seems coherent policy to say that they want to bring back the death penalty, but that we shouldn't worry they are hardly going to kill anyone. Clearly our society has not fallen to pieces letting these people live (the "circumstances where the only way for society to protect itself is to kill the offender" are clearly not present.) Have another look at the Catechism, No. 2267: "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. There is no doubt that "bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor " at present in Canada, as regards capital punishment. Do you think that the knowledge they might be hanged would have stopped Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka? It didn't dissuade Jack the Ripper or Sweeney Todd... >> No, for reasons given above. Following my arguments (above), do you still think this is so? ***And finally*** >> >> after criticising the CHP, I shall need to have another look >> >> at Quebec Solidaire's policies ... >> >> You mean, you would actually try to be consistent? Indeed, though I will take some time to consider the issues. The question is whether it is better to leave, or to argue my point ... Mr. X9
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 15 mars 2008 20:09
To: Mr. X9
Subject: RE: Further correspondance of Mr X9.
Dear Stefan,
>> I suggest we note these and return to them at a later date.
>> [monarchy and equality]
OK, no rush.
>> However: A lot of time and energy is wasted on electing individuals
>> in political parties. This often results in bad blood between certain
>> members, which undermines the effectiveness of the organisation.
Are you describing what you've seen in Québec-Solidaire, or
are you describing the very nature of elections inside a
political party?
Abusus non tollit usum.
Once again I return to the virtues required for Democracy to
work. Without those virtues, any democracy, whether internal
to a party, or external (i.e. for a whole country) will fail.
Once again I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion of Section 1344
on the Moral value of political regimes:
"Let us add that the value of a political regime depends also,
and in great part, on the men who implement it, on their
care for the Common Good leading to good laws and a wise
administration. Correction of the abuses must often be sought
less in a regime change, than in training of leaders
and improvement of laws."
>> Furthermore, climbing up a party hierarchy can become a goal in
>> itself for politicians, with the consequences this entails.
Concedo, but is this caused by the existence of a party hierarchy,
or the fact of Original Sin?
>> I think this can be done (as far as a political organisation is
>> concerned) through randomly selecting a council (or councils) from
>> the members of the party. Such a council would sit for the time
>> required to finish a specific task, and then be dissolved.
Well, as long as everybody agreed to obey this "Leader" (the vote
of the randomly-selected committee), in theory it could work.
The "Unity of Command" principle would be respected.
But in fact I think it would fail.
I think you should focus your efforts more on forming good leaders,
rather than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of
Democracy without Virtue.
>> This will remove the time wasted in elections, and avoid the
>> organisation being controlled by career politicians.
Nego. I claim it would just move the corruption elsewhere.
>> 1) Obviously, one cannot select ONE leader at random, as there will
>> always be people who will not be up to the task.
Concedo.
>> But if one selects a
>> group of people then you will have a balance.
Not necessarily. If you select three marbles from a large
container filled with white marbles, you will select three
white marbles. If your container is filled with red
marbles, you will select three red marbles.
Fill up a room with members of the Quebec-Solidaire Party,
and no matter how randomly you select, you'll end up with
pro-baby-killing atheists (or confused philosophers! ;-)
>> Indeed, you will have
>> good people sitting on a council who would not be inclined to put
>> themselves forward for election.
If you select randomly from the general population. But probably
not if you select from people who take their precious time
to come to political meetings.
>> 2) The system of meetings would need to prepare the members to be
>> able to work efficiently in such a council.
Concedo.
>> 3) There may be situations when this system is not appropriate. Other
>> mechanisms will need to be devised for these.
Concedo, i.e. your system of random selection of a Steering
Committee is sometimes appropriate, in my opinion. As the pool
of potential Committee members becomes more virtuous, it
becomes less and less relevant who actually gets selected; they
are all good! Another appropriate scenario is some sort of
leadership school, where the goal is training, and not governing.
(Which seems to be largely the case for your proposal.)
>> The method is important, but it is just the method.
Concedo.
>> Discussion is the
>> method with which we can ascertain moral principles (via natural
>> law), just as science is the method to ascertain physical laws.
Actually, not really. Natural Law is knowable by science (i.e.
certain, demonstrative knowledge). If our knowledge of Natural Law
is merely probable, and not scientific, then we have a huge problem!
>> Distinguo: What do you mean by [not] «tolerable»?
Example #1: The Disciples of the Holy Machine Gun
("Then write a book that says we should kill everybody who disagrees
with us, and claim that God dictated that book to you!")
Example #2: "The end justifies the means".
Example #3: "Sometimes the direct killing of an innocent human
person is good".
>> when school-
>> children learn that objects fall at the same rate, regardless of
>> [mass, in the absence of air], it is usually good to do the experiment.
Concedo.
>> Similarly it is necessary to show an adult why they are wrong, rather than just
>> presenting them with the results that have been arrived at.
Concedo, of course. I have nothing against educating people, as you
can imagine!
But if their error concerns fundamental moral truths (see examples
above), they must be barred from goverment until they acquire a minimum
of virtue. (And of course we have to make all reasonable efforts to
help them in that acquisition, in the meantime.)
>> Distinguo: Can you clarify you position here. Are you in favour of
>> bringing back the death penalty to Canada at the present time?
Yes.
>> This
>> argument can be used to justify political assassination of a tyrant:
>> a death penalty passed by a revolutionary court, or government in
>> exile for example.
Personally, if I had been a member of the British Secret Service
in 1939, after the invasion of Poland, I would have gladly
obeyed orders and pulled the trigger, if Hitler had been in
my crosshairs.
>> Firstly, Canada is not a dictatorship at present.
Concedo.
>> Secondly, you need to back it up with historical evidence if you want
>> to make it stand.
Nego.
I don't have to drink diesel fuel to know that would be bad for
me, and I don't need to find women who have been raped to
declare all rapes are bad, etc.
>> Thirdly, a "powerful dictator controls the courts, jails, police,
>> etc." would not be arrested and tried unless he lost his power. But
>> if he has lost his power, then he is no longer a threat, so there is
>> no need to kill him.
Concedo. We are talking about a case where he is momentarily
out of power, but still a threat.
>> Take the case of Saddam Hussein. His execution was unnecessary as he
>> could have easily been imprisoned in the United States, Great
>> Britain, or the Hague, with no chance of returning to Iraq.
I would tend to agree with you on that specific example.
>> vengeance, and the hatred it entails, are not something to base a
>> system of justice on.
Concedo.
>> a historical example would be useful here.
See below, my "Top Ten Death Penalty List".
>> It hardly seems coherent policy to say that they want to bring back
>> the death penalty, but that we shouldn't worry they are hardly going
>> to kill anyone.
:-)
I didn't write the Policy Manual for the CHP!
My arguments tend to be less wishy-washy!
>> Clearly our society has not fallen to pieces letting
>> these people live (the "circumstances where the only way for society
>> to protect itself is to kill the offender" are clearly not present.)
Here again, for those specific cases, I would tend to say
"Concedo". (I was not invoking the CHP Policy Manual as an example
of perfect policies, but as an argument against those who accuse the
CHP of wanting to kill three bloodthirsty criminals in 30 years,
while encouraging the murder of 400 preborn children a day).
>> There is no doubt that "bloodless means are sufficient to defend
>> against the aggressor" at present in Canada, as regards capital
>> punishment.
Concedo, for some types of aggressors.
There are still crimes the majority of Canadians considers abominable.
For those, the judicial system seems to still work, sort of.
But for others, not only do they escape just punishment, but they
are allowed to go out and make propaganda in favor of their crimes!
Your question is fair. If I claim the death penalty is sometimes
good, then I should come up with my "top ten" list of criminals
who deserve the death penalty the most. So here is my suggestion.
Please note, as CCC #2267 says, many conditions
would need to be met to actually go forth with imposing the death
penalty on these people, not the least being a change in Canadian
law, as well as the lack of bloodless means to stop them, etc.
1) Trudeau, Morgentaler, Carter
Reason: (Yes, I'm aware two of those are already dead, but
for the sake of the argument, pretend they are not.) If
killing one innocent person can put you in jail for the
rest of your life, what about if your corruption leads to
the mass-murder of millions of Canadians?
2) The Bishop of Fr. Raymond Gravel
Reason: His gross negligence of episcopal duties (and those
of his worst peers) causes the spread in Canada of the
Culture of Death.
3) Any Canadian political leader who publicly approves of
Robert Latimer.
Reason: If anybody can decide that a handicapped person doesn't
have a right to life, there is no hope for this country.
(Notice in my list I don't have people like Joe Abortionist, M.D.,
or Fr. Raymond Gravel, or Robert Latimer; they are just pawns.)
>> It didn't dissuade Jack the Ripper or Sweeney Todd...
Human beings are free. Politics (and laws, education, psychology,
etc.) doesn't control free will. But good laws, good education,
punishing the guilty and rewarding the good will ceteris paribus
have a positive effect.
>> Following my arguments (above), do you still think this is so?
Nope. I'm stubborn!
;-)
>> Indeed, though I will take some time to consider the issues. The
>> question is whether it is better to leave, or to argue my point ...
The reasonable option is to first try to argue your point. Write
up a question, and I'll post it on my web site. Then send it to
Quebec-Solidaire, and wait for an answer.
Cheers!
Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Mister X9 Sent: 21 mars 2008 10:32 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: RE: Further correspondance of Mr X9. Dear Stefan, Good Friday is a very fitting time to finish this e-mail on capital punishment. Your agruments touch on two things: first, whether it is reasonable to reintroduce capital punishment to a democratic country. Second, whether political assassination is moral. I tried not to dwell too long on the latter question, as it is not entirely "à propos". Nevertheless, you have forced me to make a lengthy defence of free speech. However, the first thing to resolve is whether a political party is justified in trying to reintroducing capital punishment at the present time. Beginning with your counter-arguments... >> I don't have to drink diesel fuel to know that would be bad for >> me, and I don't need to find women who have been raped to >> declare all rapes are bad, etc. This is true of a purely philosophical argument. However, we are discussing whether or not a LAW should be put in place to permit capital punishment. To continue your analogy: If you wanted to put in place a law banning diesel fuel due to the harm that it causes anyone who drinks it, you would need to provide evidence that people were drinking it. Futhermore, the situation in which it was being abused would need to be taken into account in debating legislation, in order to see what the most appropriate course of action. >> Concedo, for some types of aggressors. >> There are still crimes the majority of Canadians considers >> abominable. For those, the judicial system seems to still work, >> sort of. Concedo. >> But for others, not only do they escape just punishment, >> but they are allowed to go out and make propaganda in favor >> of their crimes! Here we come across a problem. If the majority of Canadians do not consider something to be a crime, you have to work at convincing them it is. Before one can consider whether a crime should be a capital one or not, one needs to have it recognised as a crime. I know that you consider to abortion to be mass-murder. Now, suppose you manage to convince the Canadian population that this is the case, and to pass a law to this effect. If this were to happen, you need not worry about people "allowed to go out and make propaganda in favour" of it. They will be a minority society can tolerate, the stronger reasoning against abortion having been clearly demonstrated. >> Your question is fair. If I claim the death penalty is sometimes >> good, then I should come up with my "top ten" list of criminals >> who deserve the death penalty the most. So here is my suggestion. (I have already touched on No. 1 of your list, above. to reinforce my point...) If you can change the law in a democratic country like Canada, then you can use bloodless means to try and punish the people on your list (provided, of course, that you can convict them.) If you cannot change the law then what do you propose? We are discussing capital punishment in a democratic country, and not political execution under a dictatorship. While the latter debate touches on the same questions concerning the morality of killing another human being, it is not what we are discussing. I cannot take No. 2 and 3 in your "list of people who ought to be hanged" seriously. I know you like provoking people, but the list seems to me to be constructed around political vengeance, and not reason. Take 3, for example: >> Any Canadian political leader who publicly approves of >> Robert Latimer. >> Reason: If anybody can decide that a handicapped person doesn't >> have a right to life, there is no hope for this country. The idea that one is morally justified in killing someone because you disagree withthem is completely false (though sadly common). It is an idea shared by Pol Pot, Stalin the Chinese Communist Government, the Taliban, and any other sort of Totalitarian government. I realise that bad company does not necessarily make an idea false, but it is usually an indicator that it should be investigated more thoroughly. God has given us reason, and therefore we do not "lack [...] bloodless means" to get others to change their opinion. Furthermore, in a democracy we have an unparalleled access to instruments to help us in this task (freedom of speech, the internet, newspapers, universal instruction, etc.) Of course, if some one does not change their ideas when confronted by your clear reasoning, then either you are wrong (and to hang theother would murder). Or they are mentally handicapped (being unable to use their minds properly). Are you in favour of killing such unfortunate individuals? If so, by your own logic, you should be hanged... Put simply, a democratic country works because ideas we find repugnant are allowed tobe voiced. We may not like it, but then their are plenty of people who dislike our ideas. Of course, there are limits to this, but incitement to violence (for example) can be simply dealt with. An example is the British Governments clamp down on Oswald Mosley's Fascist Party in the 1930's. Once their mass- rallies were banned, the movement dwindled to insignificance. If the government had executed Mosley, then they would have created a martyr, and have had a long-term problem on their hands. Another problem is that once a government or party takes up political murder then the political situation deteriorates (e.g. 1920s Germany). If you can kill someone because you disagree with them, what's there to stop them killing you? But again, this leads to a debate about political assassination, not capital punishment. Yours, Mister X9
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 28 mars 2008 10:40 To: Mr X9 Subject: RE: Further correspondance of Mr X9. Hello Mr X9. (Sorry I took so much time to answer. I've been busy trying to help somebody pick themselves up after the equivalent of a simultaneous divorce, job loss and relocation.) >> Good Friday is a very fitting time to finish this e-mail on capital >> punishment. Yes! Especially since God Himself approves of capital punishment on that very day! Check out [Luke 23:40-43]: a criminal condemned to death for his crimes, claims he got what he deserved, and God does not disagree with him, on the contrary, He fully approves! (Thanks for pointing out that argument to me. I hadn't noticed.) >> Your arguments touch on two things: first, whether it is reasonable >> to reintroduce capital punishment to a democratic country. Minor detail: I don't see what "democratic" has to do. If capital punishment is good, it's good whatever the political regime. And if it's bad, it's bad. >> This is true of a purely philosophical argument. However, we are >> discussing whether or not a LAW should be put in place to permit >> capital punishment. And laws are based on purely philosophical considerations (i.e. Morality/Ethics). There must be no disconnection between laws and philosophy. As Mr. Kreeft so aptly put it: "The only alternative to rights based on Metaphysics, is rights based on Might" [Source] >> To continue your [metaphor]: If you wanted to put in >> place a law banning diesel fuel due to the harm that it causes >> anyone who drinks it, you would need to provide evidence that people >> were drinking it. Futhermore, the situation in which it was being >> abused would need to be taken into account in debating legislation, >> in order to see what the most appropriate course of action. Concedo, as far as your metaphor is concerned. Except my metaphor is not the same as your metaphor. My metaphor says: "The basic principles of Morality (foundation of all laws) can be deduced analytically, without requiring trial and error". (Drinking diesel fuel is bad for you.) Your metaphor says: "Many of the finer details of Morality, and many of the more specific laws, require the addition of an empirical approach." (Should diesel fuel be outlawed, because it could be misused?) So I claim we're both right on this one. "C'est pourquoi tout un ensemble de conclusions relatives à la pratique, qui constituent la partie générale de la morale, sont établies par la méthode déductive. [...] Or, en abordant ce domaine très complexe, la lumière des principes déduits à priori ne suffit pas toujours. Il faut alors faire appel à l'expérience, observer les coutumes, les lois, les institutions où se traduit la sagesse des hommes et dont les suites heureuses ou malheureuses peuvent éclairer les problèmes et fournir aux thèses morales de précieuses confirmations. C'est pourquoi saint Thomas déclarait indispensable au moraliste la connaissance de ces faits d'expérience d'ordre moral." [PDP, §1062, my emphasis] >> Here we come across a problem. If the majority of Canadians do not >> consider something to be a crime, you have to work at convincing >> them it is. Concedo, of course. But a government also has to outlaw that crime, and try to punish wrongdoers, whatever the lack of morality of the majority. Take a more obvious example to convince yourself of this (rape, concentration camps, etc.) if abortion is not currently obvious for you. Even if the majority of Canadians believed rape to be good, you wouldn't start a 50-year education campaign to change their minds, while simultaneously not outlawing rape and arresting rapists. You would do both: educate with fancy philosophical debates, and educate with clear laws and hard sanctions. >> Before one can consider whether a crime should be a >> capital one or not, one needs to have it recognised as a crime. Distinguo. Your sentence could be interpreted as: "If the majority claims it isn't a crime, then it must not be treated as a crime, until the majority changes its mind". In that case, Nego. But if you mean: "If something is not in itself a crime, we must not consider punishing people with death for doing that act", then Concedo. >> I know that you consider abortion to be mass-murder. Well, strictly speaking, no. An abortion is killing one innocent human person. But the taxpayer-funded, government-defended, beyond-the-law, school-and-media-glorified State abortion mills are where mass-murder is being committed. >> If this were to happen, you need >> not worry about people "allowed to go out and make propaganda in >> favour" of it. We don't need to invent a hypothetical situation. Abortion was illegal throughout the Western World for centuries (well, for millenia, since the Romans were in favor of infanticide, and this was changed by Christianity). The recent changes occured because we did not deal with the pro-abortion propagandists. Does this mean we must eliminate freedom of speech? Of course not. Does this mean all pro-choicers must be punished with the death penalty? Of course not. But one or more persons are directly responsible for organizing, legalizing, and glorifying abortion camps, which are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent human persons. I claim some equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials is required for these rare but powerful persons. >> the stronger reasoning against abortion having been clearly >> demonstrated. Minor detail: you seem to assume abortion was "legalized" because of freedom of speech and debates. This is precisely not the case. It was "legalized" through propaganda and debate-avoidance, through unelected activist judges and corrupt politicians, etc. >> If you can change the law in a democratic country like >> Canada, then you can use bloodless means to try and punish the people >> on your list Concedo, in more favorable cases. But you continue to come back with your "binary world", where either everybody is perfectly virtuous and educated, or stuck in ignorance and vice. As I said in my previous e-mail: "We are talking about a case where he is momentarily out of power, but still a threat." In other words, a gray situation, not black and white. A situation where a vigorous defense of justice is needed, otherwise society will slide back into barbarity. >> We are discussing capital punishment in a democratic country, and not >> political execution under a dictatorship. Concedo. I claim political execution is not the same thing as capital punishment, whether in a democracy or in a monarchy. >> I cannot take No. 2 and 3 in your "list of people who ought to be >> hanged" seriously. That is your privilege. In order to justify that list, we would need to have a debate on abortion before. >> I know you like provoking people, but the list seems to me to be >> constructed around political vengeance, and not reason. For a cardholding member of a political party that encourages mass-murder, maybe your position is not one of strength on this point! ;-) Seriously, I'm not asking you to believe me. This is not a question of faith, but of contact with reality. See my suggested reality check below. >> The idea that one is morally justified in killing someone >> because you disagree with them is completely false Concedo. Except that is not what I'm saying. I didn't say: "Kill this bastard because I disagree with him". I said: "A high-placed government official who publicly advocates and organizes genocide is committing a serious crime, which, in extreme circumstances, should be punished with death". >> It is an idea shared by Pol Pot, Stalin the Chinese >> Communist Government, the Taliban, and any other sort of >> Totalitarian government. :-) I don't advocate mass-murder of innocent persons (as Pol Pot, Stalin and consorts did). I advocate capital punishment for a few rare guilty persons, responsible for certain very horrible crimes, like managing and promoting the mass-murder of innocent persons. >> God has given us reason, >> and therefore we do not "lack [...] bloodless means" to get others >> to change their opinion. Concedo, but you continue to beat down open doors. I didn't say: "Education doesn't work". I said: "When innocent persons are in the process of being mass-murdered, or soon to be mass-murdered, short-term drastic action must be taken, ON TOP OF all long-term educational approaches." >> in a democracy we have an >> unparalleled access to instruments to help us in this task Hum, methinks you need a reality check! ;-) Obviously, you are not involved in the pro-life movement. Try to organize a debate on abortion in the State-controlled schools or media. Also, get a camera and a microphone, and attempt some investigative journalism. Try to visit an abortion camp, and take pictures of dead babies. Try also to find the legal limits to abortion in this country. Is there any protection for the unborn? Any limits whatsoever? Honest! Even if you are pro-choice, making such attempts once will open your eyes. This is an easy reality check. I strongly recommend you perform it. Words, assertions, and inferences can only go so far. At some point of time, you need to get into empirical contact with reality. >> if some one does not change their ideas when confronted by >> your clear reasoning, then either you are wrong (and to hang >> the other would murder). Or they are mentally handicapped (being >> unable to use their minds properly). Are you in favour of killing >> such unfortunate individuals? If so, by your own logic, you should >> be hanged... Distinguo. Your argument would be perfect, if Socrates was right. Socrates claimed that "sin = ignorance". (See PHDP, §33) The actual way human minds function is more complicated (see quoted hyperlink). That is why a bank robber, who is perfectly sane and knows full well he is stealing someone else's property, can still rob banks, and be guilty for doing so. >> Put simply, a democratic country works because ideas we find >> repugnant are allowed to be voiced. ... according to a popular fallacy. Democracy is not caused by genocidal propaganda. Democracy requires freedom of speech, but freedom must remain in contact with truth. Some propaganda which we find repugnant must be tolerated, and some not. >> Of course, there >> are limits to this Thanks! >> but incitement to violence (for example) can be >> simply dealt with. Concedo, some examples of criminal propaganda can be dealth with bloodless means. Of course, I totally encourage that! >> If you can kill someone because you disagree with them, what's there to >> stop them killing you? Nothing, of course. But that is not what I'm saying (see above). Cheers! Stefan
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves