He's opened up a can of something, anyway

(HT: The American Catholic)

Narrow-mindedness is for everyone

Every now and then, someone suggests that my understanding of what is morally permissible is that it - what is morally permissible - is more narrow than what the Church explicitly requires.

That is absolutely true.

What is more, your understanding of what is morally permissible should be more narrow than what the Church explicitly requires, because what is morally permissible is in fact more narrow than what the Church explicitly requires.

This is simple to demonstrate.

Observe that there are many moral questions, specific moral questions, which the Church does not explicitly adjudicate for us. Observe further that the possible answers to some of these moral questions are mutually exclusive: some particular answers being right necessarily entails others being wrong.

Therefore, the space of what is true morally is narrower than the space of what the Church explicitly requires morally.

Miracle on Page 11

So, I don't intend to live blog my reading of David Oderberg's Real Essentialism. But it does seem that right out of the gate, on page 11, where Oderberg is arguing against modal "possible worlds" versions of essentialism, there is some confirmation of a view I already expressed: that an ID account of historical biological origins is, from an A-T perspective, an argument for miraculous special creation - an argument that nature on its own could not make the first prokaryote out of nothing (ID contra abiogenesis), nor could it "breed" a gorilla from a paramecium (ID contra evolution by purely natural causes). Oderberg distinguishes between two types of "metaphysical impossibility": the sort which means "X can occur, but requires a miracle" and the sort which means "X cannot occur in principle":

Does this mean an animal couldn't just spring into existence without natural parents (maybe from a rock?) or be zapped into existence, Adam-and-Eve-like, without parents? Or that it couldn't, say, be synthesized in a lab? I will discuss such scenarios in Chapters 7 and 8 [Looking forward to it -Z], but the first two cases do not invalidate the point: for them to obtain would require some sort of miracle. To say that Socrates's nature requires that he have parents must be taken to mean that in the natural order of things he must have parents. (For more about the laws of nature and the natural order of things, see Chapter 6 [Ditto]). This should be distinguished from a metaphysical impossibility in the absolute sense: for instance, that nothing can come into existence wholly uncaused is metaphysically impossible in the absolute sense - not even by a 'miracle' could it happen. Socrates nature is of a kind of thing that comes into existence via a biological generative process, whether or not the process involves some degree of human artifice beyond or instead of normal sexual procreation. Moreover, since Socrates might spring into existence without parents - or so I claim - it is not the case that he has parents in every world in which he exists.

So far, it seems to me that by jimmying a little terminology we can make A-T as compatible with a 'compatibilized' ID as it presumably is with the investigation of miracles for causes of sainthood (ignoring the "make life in a lab" thing, for now). The ID conclusion (whether warranted or not is a different subject) that nature on its own is incapable of producing a gorilla starting from a world where nothing lives but prokaryotes is a probabilistic inference to either the intervention of some intelligent cultivation (like a dog breeder breeding a new kind of dog) or a miracle.

If it isn't in the nature of bacteria to selectively breed "in the wild" until their progeny are giving birth to gorillas, then the historically verified geological transition from a world of bacteria-only to bacteria-and-gorillas can only be explained by some additional outside factor: intervention by super space aliens or miracle of God, say. If the facts on the ground lead to that conclusion, why would the A-T philosopher have any objection? So far I haven't seen any reason why; but hey, there are 249 pages to go, and it looks like chapters 7 and 8 will be the fun stuff.

We've established that you are a reductionist, and are just haggling over the price

Aristotlean criticisms of an "intelligent design" approach to biology are all the rage now, and the main criticism seems to be that an "intelligent design" approach to biology is reductionistic in a way that an Aristotlean approach wouldn't be. I've started reading Real Essentialism by David Oderberg, a text my Aristotlean friends assure me actually addresses modern science from an Aristotlean perspective. I hope so, because if in that text an Aristotlean metaphysician actually addresses the facts of modern science it will be the first time I've personally seen it. Certainly none of the blogospheric commentary I've seen bothers to take into consideration, you know, the facts and stuff.

One of the things I was alluding to in a previous post is that there is another possibility: it is possible that those ID characters are the real holists, and the Aristotlean understanding articulated by some folks is reductionist when it comes to objects put together or cultivated by human beings. To a certain kind of A-T philosopher, apparently, the Mona Lisa, because it is an artifact produced by a human being, is "nothing but" some greasy residue on a piece of canvas. Francis Beckwith quotes Ed Feser:

Take a few bits of metal, work them into various shapes, and attach them to a piece of wood. Voila! A mousetrap. Or so we call it. But objectively, apart from human interests, the object is “nothing but” a collection of wood and metal parts. Its “mousetrappish” character is observer-relative; it is in the minds of the designer and users of the object, and not strictly in the object itself. “Reductionism” with respect to such human artifacts is just common sense. We know that cars, computers, and cakes are objectively “nothing but” the parts that make them up – that their “carlike,” “computerlike,” or “cakelike” qualities are not really there inherently in the parts, but are observer-relative – precisely because we took the parts and rearranged them to perform a function we want them to perform but which they have no tendency to perform on their own.

As I said to the commenter who pointed out the article, someone needs to tell the mouse that the mousetrap has no objectively mousetrappish character.

(HT: Cathorick)

Hope and change

To mainstream media applause, Republican candidate says:

“I call on older people, white people, property owners, and married couples who powered the victories of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and the great Republican congressional victory of 1994 to stand together once again.”

Well, not exactly.

Uncertainty, the worst catastrophe

It occurred to me while reading this post (agree with him or not, Jim Manzi is an interesting and fair commentator on almost any subject) that modern people seem to have a pervasive tendency to take wild guesses seriously, because copping to ignorance is just unnacceptable. So we see ourselves going to war in Iraq based on a subjective "one percent probability" that Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden, even though they hated each other and we couldn't verify that Hussein had any WMD's. We see draconian regulations proposed to head off a climate disaster that everyone with knowledge of the matter agrees is not expected to happen, but is nevertheless possible in principle. We see economic theories treated by armchair theorists as deterministic models of reality, even though anyone who really had such a model that actually worked could be a billionaire overnight. We see, treated as established fact taught as such to every schoolchild, a century and a half of wild speculations about what conceivably could have caused the world of single-celled creatures to become the world we see today, because the social consequences of admitting ignorance are thought too grave to be tolerable. We see fact-resistant insistence that freely distributing condoms in Africa will stop AIDS, that contraception will reduce "unwanted pregnancies".

These are just examples which come immediately to mind. Everywhere we see the gravity of consequences driving people to conclusions which they have no reason to believe beyond bare possibility in principle, often in the face of strong contrary indications.

It seems that the thing we human beings hate most, more than just about anything else, is to admit to ourselves that we are ignorant, that we have to trust in God to deal with the things we don't know: often things of great consequence. No wonder the Tree of Knowledge was Satan's first choice of temptation for Man: more of a temptation, it seems, than the Tree of Life.

Machinists and Farmers

In some circles, the distinction between building a clock and breeding a new kind of creature seems to do some crucial metaphysical work, even though both are the actions of intelligent agents. We all know that a Bernese Mountain Dog is different from a Timex in fundamental ways. Yet it is still a fact that neither this oil-spill-eating bacteria nor that josephson junction would exist, as particular things, without the intervention, in time, of an intelligent agent.

The metaphysical issue becomes especially acute when we get into areas far away from common experience: geologic time and astronomic space, and into the submicroscopic realm, where common sense goes all the way out the window. Are the viruses we synthesize in the lab from non-living materials "alive"? Are they "artifacts", or are they "natural"? If we manufactured simple cells in the lab from non-living materials, would they "live"? Would we classify them as "artifacts" or as "natural"?

The thing that strikes me about these questions is that they are not fundamentally questions about what nature can or would do on its own, or how God does things. Nor are they questions about what we ought to do. They are questions about what we can do. Not what God can do or "would" do, nor what nature can do, but what the Imago Dei can do: about what powers we have as acting, intelligent creatures made in the image of God.

And I'm not sure that that is a question which can be answered by a philosophy of nature.

How about a Congregation for the Cause of Rationality?

I happen to be "intelligent design friendly," in the sense that I don't think Michael Behe and William Dembski are villians whose ideas are not just wrong but utterly without merit, ideas which ought to be purged from polite company. I am open to the possibility that intelligent agency, not merely randomness and fixed laws, might in fact have been causally involved with some of the actual stuff we find in the real world. I also happen to be rather "neo-Darwinism hostile," in the sense that I am fully convinced that many of the mainstream claims about evolution which I was taught in my primary education are outright falsehoods resting more on hubris than on fact.

Keep in mind that, with what follows, I am mostly talking out of my hat when it comes to characterizing philosophical positions. I'm not a philosopher, and I don't play one on TV. I'm just doing the best I can here to describe where various folks have drawn lines in the sand in actual conversations I've had recently.

Because of my own admitted biases I've long been puzzled by the hostility on the part of some Aristotlean-Thomist philosophers to ID. On the one hand, I agree that one cannot "prove the existence of God" from empirical data (because we can't "prove" anything, in a univocal sense of the term "prove" meant by the criticism, from empirical data); and there will always be folks who overreach, grind their various axes, etc. On the other hand, why all the hostility, the per se opposition, to empirical investigation of origins which is open to the possibility of intelligent agency as a cause? In particular, why all the hostility toward ID without at the same time at least a corresponding hostility to neo-Darwinian empirical investigation which a priori rules out agency as a cause? Why what looks to me like implacable hostility to the notion that some of the claims of some of the ID guys might sometimes be, you know, true and stuff: significant and interesting, even?

I think I understand it at least superficially now, after some recent discussion. To a certain kind of Aristotlean (CKA), certain things simply must be the case if the world view is to hang together. For the present discussion two things are critical. First, a very specific understanding of the categorical difference between human made artifacts and natural objects does most of the heavy lifting. Second, when we correctly predicate attributes to God we are making analogies to things we know rather than setting up an equivalence: in particular, for our purposes here, God's agency and human agency are very different sorts of things, though they are analogous.

I agree that there is a categorical difference between natural objects and artifacts, and I agree that Divine predicates are analogies. But I don't agree with what some folks mean by that.

What it all boils down to, best as I can tell, is that for our CKA the emergence of life from non-living matter through intelligent agency - when we are unequivocal about "intelligent agency", that is, we are not making an analogy - is impossible. Some might even go so far as to rule out the possibility of building a living organism from non-living materials in a laboratory setting. (Ahem). It seems to me that that particular understanding is actually subject to falsification should such a thing be accomplished; though it ought to be emphasized that not everyone agrees that A-T metaphysics makes the empirical prediction that life cannot even in principle be synthesized from non-life.

So for our CKA, a proposal to scientifically investigate the possibility that life on Earth as we actually find it emerged in part through the action of intelligent agency is literally a proposal to scientifically investigate a miracle. Certainly God is capable of miracles, because he is God; but to our CKA a ludicrously improbable event is not literally a miracle, whereas an act of agency prior to the existence of human agents is a miracle.

Keep in mind that a Christian CKA supposedly believes in miracles. However, scientifically investigating the forensic possibility that a miracle occurred is, it is supposed, an irrational and wrongheaded thing to do.

My take on that conclusion is that we'd better call these guys and let them know.

Reuters signals indifference to truth in reporting the news

I think it is only reasonable to conclude that the news agency and journalist Philip Pullella approve of raping pets and torturing kittens.

Get the full story.

Condolences

I am informed by an email correspondent that the blogger Morning's Minion at Vox Nova lost his mother to cancer in the last week. My deepest condolences.

Usury Coda

So, after the last year or so of looking into the matter I think I understand what the moral species usury is.

Contrary to my expectations I find myself largely in agreement with St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject, assuming I understand him correctly. I fully expected to disagree with Aquinas when I first started reading about usury during the financial crisis of 2008; but that has turned out not to be the case. I think Aquinas was right: that to at least some extent the folks who think they disagree with him, who think that history has gone against his view, are disagreeing with a caricature. The one place where my view may differ slightly from his is in my understanding of altruistic lending, and just titles to actual costs which may arise in the case of altruistic lending. But even so that distinction makes no difference whatsoever in evaluating present-day commercial activities, since commercial activities by definition are not altruistic. (Curiously the distinction between a credit union and a commercial bank may make all the difference between Heaven and Hell).

I do not view changes in circumstances or changes in the nature of money as at all pertinent to the question. I view Belloc's summary as substantially correct but incomplete.

Usury consists in lending money to a person, with recourse to the person for return of principal and profitable interest on the loan. It is always and without exception morally wrong to do this.

Non-usurious lending for profit consists in lending money to a person or organization, with recourse to specified assets and only those specified assets for return of principal, charging rent for the use of the portion of those assets represented by the loan, where the borrower has the option to pay off the principal and be quit of all obligation to pay interest. Non-usurious lending for profit, in short, involves mutual ownership of some specific asset or assets, where one party pays the other for the use of the other's share of those assets, not for the use of money: in a case of default the lender can recover his principal from the assets only, not the borrower. There isn't anything morally wrong with non-usurious lending for profit, and most business lending falls into this category.

Non-usurious altruistic lending consists in lending money to a person, with recourse to the person for return of principal and possibly also some actual costs incurred by the lender, provided that no profit motive is involved in making the loan. If there is any profit motive involved in making this kind of loan, it is usury. Therefore by definition it is not a business which can be justly entered into for profit.

I think we (or at least I) now have enough of an understanding to be able to look at the terms of many or most specific loans and say definitely whether those loans are or are not usurious. Unfortunately, a great many modern credit instruments - credit cards come immediately to mind, but that is just the most obvious in a vast sea of consumer credit instruments - seem to be both formally (in their contractual terms) and materially (in what actually occurs over the course of the loan) usurious.

There are other unjust acts which involve selling what doesn't exist; this post specifically addresses the species usury, not those other generic acts. Acts of government in issuing currency and that sort of thing are outside the scope of these conclusions. And of course it is eminently possible that I'll have to modify this view in light of some new information or argument of which I am currently unaware. But there is enough now in my view to warrant this definite conclusion, including definite criteria based on Magisterial sources for determining when the sin of usury specifically is being committed.

Asset-recourse loans are not usury

Pope Callistus III (1455-1458), Usury and Contract for Rent, from the Constitution "Regimini universalis" May 6, 1455 (quoted in Denzinger):

A petition recently addressed to us proposed the following matter: For a very long time, and with nothing in memory running to the contrary, in various parts of Germany, for the common advantage of society, there has been implanted among the inhabitants of those parts and maintained up to this time through constant observance, a certain custom. By this custom, these inhabitants -- or, at least, those among them, who in the light of their condition and indemnities, seemed likely to profit from the arrangement -- encumber their goods, their houses, their fields, their farms, their possessions, and inheritances, selling the revenues or annual rents in marks, or florins, or groats (according as this or that coin is current in those particular regions), and for each mark, florin, or groat in question, from those who have bought these coins, whether as revenues or as rents, have been in the habit of receiving a certain price appropriately fixed as to size according to the character of the particular circumstances, in conformity with the agreements made in respect of the relevant properties between themselves and the buyers. As guarantee for the payment of the aforeseaid revenues and rents they mortgage those of the aforesaid houses, lands, fields, farms, possessions, and inheritances that have been expressly named in the relevant contracts. In the favor of the sellers it is added to the contract that in proportion as they have, in whole or in part, returned to the said buyers the money just received, they are entirely quit and free of the obligation to pay the revenues and rents corresponding to the sum returned. But the buyers, on the other hand, even though the said goods, houses, lands, fields, possessions, and inheritances might by the passage of time be reduced to utter destruction and desolation, would not be empowered to recover even in respect of the price paid. [Note: precisely what I have termed an asset-recourse loan, as distinguished from person-recourse loans. -- Z]

Now, by some a certain doubt and hesitation is entertained as to whether contracts of this kind are to be considered licit. Consequently, certain debtors, pretending these contracts would be usurious, seek to find thereby an occasion for the nonpayment of revenues and rents owed by them in this way... We therefore, ... in order to remove every doubt springing from these hesitations, by our Apostolic authority, do declare by these present letters that the aforesaid contracts are licit and in agreement with law, and that said sellers, yielding all opposition, are effectively bound to the payment of the rents and revenues in conformity with the terms of the said contracts. [Ellipses in original.]

Turning it up to eleven

The Church teaches a set of criteria all of which must be satisfied in order for a decision to go to war to be just. I take it that the fact that all of them must be satisfied means that all of them must be satisfied, not that if several of them are turned up to eleven we can discount the remaining ones to irrelevance.

One way we can turn all the other criteria up to eleven to test the idea is through casuistry. I propose that the hypothetical of MAD, if we fine tune it a little, makes a reasonable gedankenexperiment.

Suppose that two armies are based on entirely different planets, planet Hatfield and planet McCoy. Planet Hatfield has only an army on it: all of the noncombatant civilians in the universe are on planet McCoy, so there are literally no innocents to protect from the Hatfields except the McCoys.

The Hatfields launch a planet-busting attack on the McCoys which cannot be stopped. (It doesn't matter why: presume for the sake of argument that it is an unjust attack).

The only thing the McCoys are capable of doing is to launch weapons to kill some or all of the Hatfields without saving themselves. In other words, there is no serious prospect of success in the McCoys defending themselves through the use of arms. Presume certainty about the scenario, etc: that is, all of the other criteria for a just war are met.

Is it morally licit for the McCoys to launch an attack on the Hatfields?

As frustrating[*] as the answer may be, I think it is that no, it isn't morally licit: each of the criteria in the just war doctrine must be independently satisfied, even when all the other criteria are turned up to eleven.

[*] I think part of the reason we find it frustrating - and I do mean "we" - is that we often find ourselves reluctant to leave ultimate justice to God.

Might makes right

One of the more difficult elements of the just war doctrine is the requirement that the country defending itself must actually have the power to defend itself in order for the decision to wage war to be just.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2309 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

(Emphasis mine).

Of course this means "might makes right" only as a necessary condition for a just war, not a sufficient condition. All of the other conditions must also be satisfied. But it is perhaps important to make it explicit that, contrary to modern egalitarian and democratic sensibilities, one of the requirements for justified remote material cooperation with evil is that the person doing it must be powerful enough to actually achieve the intended good end.

Put differently, we can't justify our acts of remote material cooperation with evil by appealing to outcomes we are powerless to bring about.

Circumstantial Causes

There is a ridiculous objection which often comes up when discussing voting or other sorites-building contests like the rocket race in the last post.

The objection goes something like this:

If we accept that our own personal act of voting has negligible influence over the outcome of the contest it must follow that the outcome of the contest has no cause, since everyone's individual vote has negligible influence over the outcome. Obviously the outcome has a cause; therefore our individual vote has non-negligible influence over the outcome.

A moment's reflection reveals the silliness of this objection.

The outcome of the contest is caused by all of the votes taken together. These votes are separated into two categories. All but one of the votes are votes cast by other people, not you. Therefore they form part of the circumstances of your vote. The remaining vote is, of course, your vote itself.

The outcome of the contest is determined by your action in combination with the circumstances of your action. The influence of your action on that outcome is literally negligible compared to the influence of the circumstances: the outcome is going to be the same whether or not you even exist, let alone whether or not you vote in a certain way.

Therefore it is simultaneously true that the outcome is caused by all the votes taken in aggregate, and that your vote's influence on the outcome is literally negligible.

To the moon, Alice!

Suppose there is a big rocket race. Several teams compete to win, but only two of those teams are actually viable as winners. It takes about a million pounds of rocket fuel to win, and only those two teams have a practical hope of getting that much fuel.

The way teams get rocket fuel is by soliciting it from individuals. Every individual in the country gets one-tenth of an ounce of rocket fuel - and only one tenth of an ounce. We each get to decide which team gets our tenth-ounce of fuel.

Can I meaningfully influence the outcome of the race with my tenth-ounce of fuel? No.

Does the process of choosing who gets my tenth-ounce of fuel have meaningful effects on me, and on those people who I interact with in doing the choosing? Absolutely.

With that background, if giving my fuel to a team involves remote material cooperation with evil, which effects are most important for me to consider when evaluating whether or not I have a proportionate reason: effects which flow from the outcome of the race, or effects which flow from my own act of giving fuel to a team?

More funding for abortion is just the status quo

And hey, given that it is the status quo it is fine and dandy to formally support the law that does it, as long as you support that law for other reasons, right?

I checked into what my own bishop is teaching about the matter, and was referred to this:

Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Its failure to preserve the legal status quo that has regulated the government’s relation to abortion, as did the original bill adopted by the House of Representatives last November, could undermine what has been the law of our land for decades and threatens the consensus of the majority of Americans: that federal funds not be used for abortions or plans that cover abortions. Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself.

Nothing but Net

Apparently the argument is in the ether that it is OK to support legislation which permits or even funds abortion, as long as that legislation will result in a net reduction in the number of abortions.

That is a load of poppycock.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a law up for consideration. This law bans all abortions for white people, but it permits other abortions already permitted under the law and adds in that killing, say, Haitians up to age six is now permitted.

Lets suppose that on a net basis this law will in fact reduce the net number of legal murders, even though it permits murders which were not permitted under the previous law.

According to arguments in some quarters it should be OK to support this new law, since on a net basis it reduces the number of legal murders. This illusion arises because some folks are interpreting Evangelium Vitae's language - more restrictive - to mean a net decrease in some aggregate number. But this is obviously not what it means. More restrictive means more restrictive; it doesn't mean using some net actuarial argument to grant permission to murder, or for that matter to fund the murder of, human beings whose murders are not federally funded under current law.

It is always wrong without exception to support removing the legal protection of the life of one single innocent in the law. That includes even the small legal protection of not having her murder funded by the government.

A veracity heuristic

When Planned Parenthood and pro-life groups unanimously agree on something, it is probably true.

Planned Parenthood caught in the Girl Scout cookie jar, again

I guess the idea is that this delightful brochure might be helpful if a little girl gets Lemonaids.