Fewer Broken Pieces

I am currently involved in a discussion about the moral calculus of war and abortion, particularly in how they relate to voting. Bobby Grow argues that abortion is worse than war. Halden counters that abortion and war should really be considered the same, since they both involve violence. I am inclined to agree that the “innocence” rubric used by Bobby is problematic in this context. When it comes to war, it makes much more sense to say “combatant” and “non-combatant,” because innocence may have very little to do with whether or not someone has taken up arms, especially in the case of military conscription. That being said, I still agree with Bobby contra Halden that abortion should indeed be considered more morally outrageous.

I go on to suggest that both abortion and war should be disqualifiers in a candidate, even though one may be worse than the other. Using binary logic in the presidential elections is bad because there are more than two options and there is also the option of not voting (the Null vote). So, even though abortion may be worse than war, it makes no sense to use that as a point of distinction between two evils. Put both parties on notice about their unacceptable positions and save your vote for someone who is not merely the lesser of two evils.

Victoria Osteen, wife of super-mega-jumbo church pastor Joel Osteen, is being sued by a flight attendandt for an altercation on board a plane in 2005.  The details of the matter and the validity of the claims do not concern me.  Here is what I find interesting:

Brown wants an apology and punitive damages amounting to 10 percent of Victoria Osteen’s net worth as part of her suit.

To be honest, the punitive damages being requested seem excessive, though perhaps I am being presumptuous about Mrs. Osteen’s net worth.  But this case represents the perfect test of how we apply the Sermon on the Mount:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

So what should a Christian do in this case?

There is a lot of discussion concerning Rowan Williams’ essay The Body’s Grace of late.  The essay, in and of itself, is something of a primer on the Archbishop’s thinking on the subject of human sexuality and the gospel.  Namely, it seems to be a framework by which he dissents to the notion that heterosexual marriages are the only appropriate place for sex.

Needless to say, it can be controversial.  I am aware of at least two series of posts which deal with the topic.  Mike Higton does some deep interaction with Williams’ ideas and apparently has a favorable opinion.  Meanwhile Ken Smith takes a more critical approach.

Personally, I think Williams greatly confuses matters by never addressing the issue directly, as Shane has observed.  The guise of “thinking theologically” is often used, I think, as a means of circumlocution.  Williams is particularly deficient in the essay in his lack of consideration for the witness of Scripture.  At any rate, I have noted that much of this type of theological writing is “so heavenly minded so as to be of no earthly good.”  Consequently I am considering writing some reflections on the role of theologians in the church, because I believe that such unapproachable theological writing is not edifying for the body of Christ.

I am still waiting to hear a good reason why it is acceptable from the standpoint of Christian theology and ethics to place copy restrictions on translations of the Scriptures.

Scientists revealed the existence of the first genetically-modified human embryo:

Led by Nikica Zaninovic, researchers at Cornell University added a green fluorescent protein to an embryo left over from assisted reproduction. They destroyed the embryo five days later. It is believed to be the first documented genetic modification of a human embryo.

The work was done in 2007, but it only became widely publicized because the UK is looking into legislation in the area.

Is it ethical to destroy a human being in the course of research? I answer emphatically “No!”  However, that is not the entire issue.  Researchers may be able to learn more about or prevent genetic disease via genetic modifications.  In the latter case, the embryo would be allowed to live and pass on its “improved” DNA to the gene pool.  So Christians need to come to a conclusion on whether genetic modification of embryos is acceptable.

There will be much in the way of utilitarian ethical reasoning in the coming debate.  Obviously the prospect of curing genetic disease will be quite compelling.  However, I suspect that genetic modification may go the way of abortion, where the hard cases are the minority and abortion on demand is the norm.  In this case, modification on demand would mean the creation of designer babies, custom human beings.  This could range from something superficial like hair color to something more drastic, or any combination of any in between.  The prospect of a genetically superior upper class makes me weary of genetic modifications of humans.  It reminds me of Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World:

Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m really awfuly glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I’m so glad I’m a Beta.

I have been thinking a lot about ethics (thanks to gg.o and school), particularly Christian ethical systems. There are a wide variety of Christian ethical systems, many of which do well for governing personal behavior and behavior within the church. The area where Christian ethics are weak (and likely with all theistic ethical systems) is that they cannot interface properly with secular viewpoints.

If a dispute arises (and dispute resolution is half of ethics), I will not be able to argue my case by citing the existence of God, his laws, or his nature in my favor. Atheists and worshipers of other deities will not agree with those grounds, even in the case that they actually support the same conclusion. At this point we are stuck.

So how do theists have moral dialog with atheists? Do we throw up our hands and say it is impossible? Do we adopt some secular system of ethics which corresponds decently with how we view our theistic system? Is such a correspondence possible?

For the atheists: Can you elaborate on this problem if you have experienced. What would be your preferred solution for entering into dispute resolution with theists?

It was on July 4, 2005, on a houseboat adrift on Lake Shasta, that I became a pacifist. Sort of. I had been reading Richard Hays’ The Moral Vision of the New Testament, and that day I came to his praxis chapter entitled “Violence in Defense of Justice.”

Thus far in my life I had not really considered the position carefully. I was certainly not a warmonger and had little serious interest in joining the armed forces, but I did enjoy reading about and watching reenactments of war. I found it fascinating to discuss military history and tactics with family and friend. And in general I was quite proud of America’s record in war. Perhaps my position at that time was best summarized thus: “You gotta do what you gotta do.”

To say that Hays’ writing on war effectuated a change of my opinion would be an understatement. It caused a paradigm shift. Said shift is not yet complete; my current views on the subject are still moving away from that old paradigm, not only with respect to my position but moreover with respect to how I think about war.

I agree with Hays’ assertion that the voice of the New Testament, and especially Jesus himself, is uniform with respect to this subject: violence is not acceptable. Both in Jesus’ teaching (”turn the other cheek”) and his behavior (”like a lamb to the slaughter”) he lived the nonviolent ideal. Also, Paul seems to reject armed resistance, even against the corrupt Roman government.

However, there are real consequences to forgoing violence in defense of justice. Namely, innocent third parties may have to suffer and/or die as a result of my ideals. So we have “just wars.”

Were there ever a just war, I think World War 2 would be a good example. Even without the Holocaust, what Germany did in Europe was without excuse and deserving of confrontation. Still, history is written by the winners and the allies did use morally questionably tactics to accomplish victory. And I think there are parallels in all wars. So, in my opinion, the “just war” is as much an ideal abstraction as non-violent resistance. And this still leaves me with a dilemma.