In the Sixties, a groundbreaking series of experiments found that 65 per cent of us would kill if ordered to do so.
By Michael Mosley
January 06, 2011 "The Independent" -- We have vain brains; we see ourselves as better than we really are. We like to think that we exercise free will, that put into a situation where we were challenged to do something we thought unacceptable then we'd refuse. But, if you believe that, then you are probably deluded.
I make this claim, based partly on the work of psychologist Stanley Milgram. Milgram devised and carried out ingenious experiments that exposed the frailty and self-delusion that are central to our lives. He showed how easy it is to make ordinary people do terrible things, that "evil" often happens for the most mundane of reasons.
I first read about Milgram's work when I was a banker in the Seventies, working in the City. I was so fascinated by his ideas that I re-trained as a doctor, with the intention of becoming a psychiatrist. Instead I became a science journalist. Recently I got the chance to make The Brain: A Secret History, a television series which reveals how much we have learnt about ourselves through the work of some of the 20th century's most influential, and deeply flawed, psychologists.
In the course of making the series we found rare archive and first-hand accounts of the many inventive and sometimes sinister ways in which experimental psychology has been used to probe, tease, control and manipulate human behaviour. High on the list of psychologists I wanted to learn more about was Stanley Milgram.
The son of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Milgram struggled to understand how it was that German soldiers in the Second World War were persuaded to take part in barbaric acts, such as the Holocaust. As he once wrote: "How is possible, I ask myself, that ordinary people who are courteous and decent in everyday life could act callously, inhumanely, without any limitations of conscience."
Milgram was working as an assistant professor at Yale University in 1960 when he dreamt up an experiment that would try to answer that question. It was beautifully designed to reveal uncomfortable truths about human nature. Milgram described the moment he had the idea as "incandescent".
Some claim that what Milgram did was ethically and scientifically dubious. I have always thought it was justified and hugely important, but I had never had the chance to interview any of the "volunteers" who had unwittingly taken part in his notorious experiment, to get their perspective.
Last summer, nearly 50 years after the original experiment, I finally met one of the few remaining survivors, Bill Menold. I talked to Bill in his kitchen, surrounded by his grandchildren, who were eager to hear his account.
In 1961 Bill Menold was 23 and had recently left the army. "I happened to see an ad in The New Haven Register and it said 'memory and learning experiment' and they were going to pay $4, and I thought. I'm going to be in New Haven that day, why not?"
He went along to a building where he met an earnest young man in a white lab coat – The Experimenter - and a middle-aged volunteer. The Experimenter told Bill that he would be the Teacher and the other volunteer would be the Learner. The Teacher's task was to give the Learner a simple set of memory tasks, which he would then be tested on. If the Learner got an answer wrong, the Teacher had to give him an electric shock. If he continued to give wrong answers, the shocks would steadily increase.
Bill was left in a room with a microphone and a set of electrical controls. The Learner was put in another room, where Bill could hear but not see him. Then the experiment began. The Learner was a slow learner.
"Wrong – 150 volts."
Bill sat at the desk, carrying out the task he had been asked to do. Despite the screams coming from the next room, he continued to ask questions and administer electric shocks when the Learner failed to answer correctly.
"Wrong – 195 volts."
Even now he finds it hard to explain what went on inside him that day. "You are sitting in that chair with this stuff going on and that pressure that you were under, it's very hard to think clearly. I've never had anything before or since that was like that. Where you were literally out of your mind."
"Wrong – 350 volts."
"I just said to myself, I'm just gonna play this out and pretty soon we'll be out of here. I'm finishing this thing. I don't care what happens. Once you make the decision, you've made your decision. I want to go home. I want to get out of here, go and get a beer somewhere and go home. You know?
"Wrong – 450 volts."
When I asked him if he thought he had killed the Learner, Bill replied, "Yeah. When he stopped responding."
What Bill and the other volunteers who took part weren't told was that the electric shocks were fake – and that both the Experimenter and the Learner were actors. The real purpose of the experiment was to see how far the volunteers would go. Stanley Milgram had asked colleagues how many people they thought would go all the way and administer a lethal 450-volt shock. Most said less than 1 per cent – and those would probably be psychopaths.
Yet Bill, like 65 per cent of the volunteers, gave an apparently lethal electric shock when told to do so.
I remember thinking, when I first read this, that such a figure was completely unbelievable. I was absolutely certain, and I'm sure everyone who read about Milgram's work was equally certain, that I would never give a fatal electric shock to someone simply because I had been asked to do so by someone in authority. It is inconceivable that I could be manipulated in this way.
Perhaps, I thought, the volunteers had deep-down realised that this was a fake experiment, that they were just playing along. When critics put this point to Milgram he scathingly responded, "the suggestion that the subjects only feigned sweating, trembling, and stuttering to please the Experimenter is pathetically detached from reality, equivalent to the statement that haemophiliacs bleed to keep their physicians busy".
Milgram argued that far from being in any way fake, his experiment demonstrated in a very stark way something that we all know happens, but which we can't bring ourselves to believe. It is more comfortable to imagine that there was something uniquely evil or weak about German prison guards than to believe that most of us would behave the same way when faced by the same set of circumstances. "One of the illusions about human behaviour is that it stems from personality or character, but social psychology shows us that often human behaviour is dominated by the roles that we are asked to play."
Bill was surprisingly sanguine about having been deceived, and very honest, particularly when he was talking about that moment when he abandoned his moral compass and handed over responsibility for his actions to the Experimenter. With the wisdom of hindsight he was able to admire the thoroughness of the experiment and the skill with which the actors had played their parts.
I think that a more legitimate criticism than, "they were faking it," was the relevance of Milgram's experiment to the real world. Perhaps people had behaved the way they did largely because of the artificiality of the situation? In 1966, inspired by Milgram's findings, a psychiatrist called Charles Hofling created a more realistic scenario.
He arranged for 22 nurses working in a large hospital to be rung, separately, by a man simply calling himself, "Dr Smith". Dr Smith told each of the nurses that he wanted them to give 20mg of a drug called Astroten to a patient, who he named. Dr Smith also told the nurses that he was on his way to the hospital and would sign the necessary paperwork when he arrived.
The drug, an invention of the experimenters, had been placed in the drug cabinet several days before the telephone call with a prominent warning on its side that 10mg was the maximum safe dose. Despite this, and despite the fact that hospital protocol specifically stated that no drug should ever be administered based solely on a phone call, 21 out of the 22 nurses were preparing to give the 20mg dose when they were stopped. The nurses had bowed to the imagined authority of the "doctor".
People obviously knew, long before Milgram and Hofling did their experiments, that humans have a tendency to blindly follow orders, if they are presented in a plausible fashion by someone who is apparently in authority. What these experiments revealed was just how strong this "tendency" really is. Psychology, which is often criticised for discovering the bleeding obvious, had shown that it was capable of making surprising, original, disturbing contributions to our understanding of ourselves.
Some professional bodies,such as the US army, responded to these findings by incorporating it into their training, making sure that would-be officers were aware of the pressures they might come under to follow orders they felt were unethical. Medical and nursing students are also now taught of the dangers of blindly following orders.
Others,such as the American Psychological Society, responded to criticisms of Milgram's methods by adopting new guidelines for the treatment of volunteers in psychological experiments. In a more nebulous way, I also think Milgram contributed to the widespread questioning and suspicion of authority that was characteristic of his era, the 1960s.
Milgram's own motivation for doing experiments was not mistrust of authority, but the desire to understand why authority has such a hold over us. To find out more, he then took to the streets to see how people would behave in a situation where there was no obvious authority.
Milgram went with his students on to the New York subway. Their task was to approach passengers on the train and say, pleasantly: "I'd like your seat, please". As Milgram pointed out beforehand, "if you ask a New Yorker if he would give up his seat to a man who gives no reason for asking, he would say 'never'. But what would he really do?" The answer was that in just over half of all cases people gave up their seats when asked.
Recently I decided to repeat this experiment in a busy London shopping centre, with similar results. I was surprised by how many people complied with my completely unreasonable request, but even more surprised by how uncomfortable I found asking them to do it, something Milgram also discovered.
"I was about to say the words 'excuse me, sir, may I have your seat,' but I found something very interesting, there was an enormous inhibition, the words wouldn't come out, I simply couldn't utter them, there was this terrible restraint against saying this phrase."
Although it was unexpected, Milgram thought that this was a hugely significant finding. He had found through his own personal experience just how important feeling socially awkward is when it comes to modifying behaviour. We don't like breaking the social rules – whether it's asking for somebody's seat, or disobeying the instructions of somebody whose authority we have accepted.
In everyday situations there is an implicit set of rules of who is in charge and if we violate these rules it leads to feelings of embarrassment and awkwardness so intense we prefer to accept the submissive role the occasion requires. It is a terrible critique of human behaviour that we would rather let something terrible happen than act in a socially embarrassing manner. Yet it helps explain some of the chilling crimes you read about when someone is attacked, even murdered, in a public place and no one intervenes.
Now I'd like to believe that we have, as a society and because of what psychologists like Milgram have taught us, become less blind to the demands of authority. I'd like to believe that, but I don't.
Dr Thomas Blass, Milgram's biographer, recently asked himself that question."Would Milgram find less obedience if he conducted his experiments today? I doubt it. To go beyond speculation on this question, I gathered all of Milgram's standard obedience experiments and the replications conducted by other researchers. The experiments spanned a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985.
"I did a correlational analysis relating each study's year of publication and the amount of obedience it found. I found a zero-correlation – that is, no relationship whatsoever. In other words, on the average, the later studies found no more or less obedience than the ones conducted earlier."
There was a recent example of the continuing tendency towards blind obedience in the USA when a con man, dubbed "the modern Milgram", made the staff of dozens of fast-food restaurants behave in an appalling fashion simply by ringing up and pretending to be a policeman.
He persuaded managers to strip-search their staff in search of stolen goods, to make them jog naked, even to strip off and appear naked in front of startled customers. One manager, who strip-searched an employee and was subsequently jailed, said, "I didn't want to do it, but it was like he was making me".
Milgram once wrote that we are "puppets controlled by the strings of society". Yet what is also true is that not all puppets jump when their strings are pulled. Many of the fast-food managers who were rung up the "policeman" refused to follow his orders. In Milgram's own experiment, although 65 per cent of the volunteers were prepared to give apparently lethal electric shocks, that still left 35 per cent who would not.
What no experimenter has yet been able to predict are the characteristics that mark out those who will rebel from the rest. The only way you will ever know how you measure up is when you find yourself tested. You have a one in three chance of passing.
Editor's NOTE:
It is intriguing that the referenced psychological experiments on the selecting of the proper moral response yielded only a rate of 33% and that 2/3 of those tested were prepared to comply with an obviously immoral request including delivering a lethal electric shock.
These experiments would seem to demonstrate how difficult it can be to develop a properly formed moral conscience particularly in a society in which rank Utilitarianism and moral relativism are the rule rather than the exception. The effects of social pressure can be exceedingly great where a virtual societal moral vaccuum prevails. The important thing to recognize of course is that morally virtuous behavior cannot be completely extinguished any more than the Natural Law can be.
For millennia, the wisdom of the perennial philosophy has taught us that solitary virtuous acts are more likely to be performed where the common morality is highly developed and where virtuous character is developed through practice.
On a more practical level, parents recognize that they cannot teach the importance of virtuous behavior to their children in a milieu where they are constantly bombarded by immorality. If we wish to avoid whole-sale acts of morally reprehensible societal behavior, it behooves us to work toward the establishment of a much more highly developed common morality which follows the natural moral law.
Unfortunately, in the so-called developed West, the natural moral law has been replaced by a largely immoral kind of rank Utilitarianism--and with it the legalization of obviously immoral behavior(s) most commonly justified on the basis of spuriously postulated concepts of human right(s) where the "rights" in question are fictitious rather than real (based on the natural moral law and a fixed human anthropology). --Dr. J. P. Hubert
Showing posts with label Utilitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utilitarianism. Show all posts
Friday, January 7, 2011
Monday, March 9, 2009
President Obama Confuses Politics with Ethics
Editorial Comment
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
In his White House announcement and executive order today reversing the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) the President left the door open to possible federal funding of human cloning for biomedical research (CBR) while indicating that cloning to produce children (CPC also termed reproductive cloning) will remain unfunded and given the largely negative public reaction to the very idea--one presumes illegal.
Human Cloning Not Controllable:
President Obama speaks as though human reproductive cloning and cloning for biomedical research are completely different. However, the first step in human cloning (the creation of a blastocyst) is the same in either case. As a result, there is no practical way to prevent human reproductive cloning once widespread federally funded human cloning for biomedical research is underway despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary (policing the process of blastocyst creation would be virtually impossible).
Human Cloning for Biomedical Research is Legal Now:
At present, it is legal in the United States to create cloned human embryos for biomedical research. Moreover, there is at least one private company (Advanced Cell Technology, [ACT]) currently engaged in that endeavor albeit privately funded for-profit.
Utilitarian Calculus vs: Traditional Moral Analysis:
From a traditional moral perspective, human cloning for any purpose is immoral as is any kind of embryonic stem cell research (human embryo’s must be killed in order to obtain the ESC’s--given current technology). Should it ever be possible to do so without killing the embryos—it would be morally licit to remove their stem cells only if any potential benefit accrued to the embryo in question (the embryo from which the cells were taken) exceeded the risk. It would remain morally illicit to utilize them for other persons and or purposes.
Those who embrace Utilitarianism like President Obama and the other advocates of ESCR and cloning for biomedical research (CBR) find nothing inherently wrong with killing human embryos and therefore deem it completely acceptable (in fact extremely useful) to do so as a “means” to the end of promoting ESCR. Presumably they do so believing (incorrectly) that human embryos are not actually but only “potentially” human beings or because they believe that since embryos do not resemble post-natal human beings—they are not--inherently valuable/to be protected as are other human beings. The former represents an error in analysis of the relevant and undisputed biological data, the latter an error in (illogical) intellection (size, shape, etc are irrelevant to the issue as can be seen in the case of triple amputees and other seriously physically disabled persons).
Most advocates of ESCR and CBR are unwilling to engage in a discussion of either the biologically or philosophically relevant issues—presumably because they are aware that their position on these matters will fail to pass intellectual muster. Nevertheless many advocates who recognize this reality (one assumes that some have the requisite analytical ability) continue to advocate for ESCR and CBR. This would appear to represent a Utilitarian calculus in which for them, the “means” employed are simply not relevant to the “end” desired even if the “means” in question are clearly morally illicit (it is never morally licit to intentionally kill an innocent human being) by traditional moral standards. That however is the nature of Utilitarianism as a “philosophy” of right and wrong. It does not recognize the object rationally chosen, “means” or proximate end, only the effect desired. Given that a legitimate moral philosophy must come to grips with an honest analysis of "means" vs: "ends", Utilitarianism is not really a moral philosophy at all in the traditional sense. Rather it is a political philosophy in which a tyranny of the majority can be foisted on the minority. In Utilitarianism the “principle of utility” is purposely allowed to circumvent all other concerns. While it has been around for over a century, only recently has it become the clear reigning ethical (immoral) philosophy in the United States and much of the developed West.
False Arguments:
In listening to ESCR advocates and commentators who opined after the post-executive order signing ceremony--several vacuous arguments were advanced. One completely absurd example was proffered today by Congresswoman Diane DeGette of Colorado (who by the way refused to answer the question of whether human embryos should be considered actual or potential life), is that since the embryonic stem cells which are derived by killing embryos might someday be helpful in preventing or treating dreaded diseases, it is really "pro-life" to kill them for this purpose. From the perspective of the embryonic human being who is killed, nothing could be further from the truth not to mention that there is no evidence in humans whatsoever, that ESCR will ever produce a clinically relevant treatment for disease. Moreover, results in animal models have at best been inconclusive and fraught with untoward side-effects .
Integrity not Politics in Science:
President Obama is correct to insist that integrity in scientific research is paramount and that the results of same not be adulterated or otherwise “spun” in order to advance certain political goals. However, his administration’s claims about ESCR represent an unfortunate example of that very problem. The hype with which today’s announcement and executive order were made regarding the purported efficacy of ESCR was excessive in light of the actual data available. Moreover, the extremely important results which have been obtained with Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) to date were completely ignored. This appears to have been a carefully calibrated political calculation.
Traditional Morality Removed from Scientific Research/Utilitarian Calculus:
The President reasons that it is high time to remove politics from science while engaging in that very practice himself. More to the point, what he really advocates is the removal of all traditional moral precepts (as found in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis also know as the golden-rule ethic or the equality of life ethic) from the practice of scientific research; replacing it with a Utilitarian calculus where expediency is allowed to trump all other considerations. In so doing he would effectively eliminate the possibility that desperately needed moral clarification will take place--despite claiming that his administration will be extremely careful to proceed in an ethical (read Utilitarian) manner. The point--one fears--is being missed by the vast majority of Americans who are unaware that Utilitarianism has replaced traditional morality as the reigning ethical (immoral/amoral) construct in the US. It is becoming more and more common-place to find examples of "exigent circumstances" (through the application of a Utilitarian ethic) whereby innocent human beings are being legally killed in the United States (particularly at both extremes of life). The President's executive order and request for Congress to pass legislation compatible with it represent a further descent down the slippery slope which began over 30 years ago in the United States. Whether we like it or not, as Americans, we're all Utilitarians now!
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
In his White House announcement and executive order today reversing the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) the President left the door open to possible federal funding of human cloning for biomedical research (CBR) while indicating that cloning to produce children (CPC also termed reproductive cloning) will remain unfunded and given the largely negative public reaction to the very idea--one presumes illegal.
Human Cloning Not Controllable:
President Obama speaks as though human reproductive cloning and cloning for biomedical research are completely different. However, the first step in human cloning (the creation of a blastocyst) is the same in either case. As a result, there is no practical way to prevent human reproductive cloning once widespread federally funded human cloning for biomedical research is underway despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary (policing the process of blastocyst creation would be virtually impossible).
Human Cloning for Biomedical Research is Legal Now:
At present, it is legal in the United States to create cloned human embryos for biomedical research. Moreover, there is at least one private company (Advanced Cell Technology, [ACT]) currently engaged in that endeavor albeit privately funded for-profit.
Utilitarian Calculus vs: Traditional Moral Analysis:
From a traditional moral perspective, human cloning for any purpose is immoral as is any kind of embryonic stem cell research (human embryo’s must be killed in order to obtain the ESC’s--given current technology). Should it ever be possible to do so without killing the embryos—it would be morally licit to remove their stem cells only if any potential benefit accrued to the embryo in question (the embryo from which the cells were taken) exceeded the risk. It would remain morally illicit to utilize them for other persons and or purposes.
Those who embrace Utilitarianism like President Obama and the other advocates of ESCR and cloning for biomedical research (CBR) find nothing inherently wrong with killing human embryos and therefore deem it completely acceptable (in fact extremely useful) to do so as a “means” to the end of promoting ESCR. Presumably they do so believing (incorrectly) that human embryos are not actually but only “potentially” human beings or because they believe that since embryos do not resemble post-natal human beings—they are not--inherently valuable/to be protected as are other human beings. The former represents an error in analysis of the relevant and undisputed biological data, the latter an error in (illogical) intellection (size, shape, etc are irrelevant to the issue as can be seen in the case of triple amputees and other seriously physically disabled persons).
Most advocates of ESCR and CBR are unwilling to engage in a discussion of either the biologically or philosophically relevant issues—presumably because they are aware that their position on these matters will fail to pass intellectual muster. Nevertheless many advocates who recognize this reality (one assumes that some have the requisite analytical ability) continue to advocate for ESCR and CBR. This would appear to represent a Utilitarian calculus in which for them, the “means” employed are simply not relevant to the “end” desired even if the “means” in question are clearly morally illicit (it is never morally licit to intentionally kill an innocent human being) by traditional moral standards. That however is the nature of Utilitarianism as a “philosophy” of right and wrong. It does not recognize the object rationally chosen, “means” or proximate end, only the effect desired. Given that a legitimate moral philosophy must come to grips with an honest analysis of "means" vs: "ends", Utilitarianism is not really a moral philosophy at all in the traditional sense. Rather it is a political philosophy in which a tyranny of the majority can be foisted on the minority. In Utilitarianism the “principle of utility” is purposely allowed to circumvent all other concerns. While it has been around for over a century, only recently has it become the clear reigning ethical (immoral) philosophy in the United States and much of the developed West.
False Arguments:
In listening to ESCR advocates and commentators who opined after the post-executive order signing ceremony--several vacuous arguments were advanced. One completely absurd example was proffered today by Congresswoman Diane DeGette of Colorado (who by the way refused to answer the question of whether human embryos should be considered actual or potential life), is that since the embryonic stem cells which are derived by killing embryos might someday be helpful in preventing or treating dreaded diseases, it is really "pro-life" to kill them for this purpose. From the perspective of the embryonic human being who is killed, nothing could be further from the truth not to mention that there is no evidence in humans whatsoever, that ESCR will ever produce a clinically relevant treatment for disease. Moreover, results in animal models have at best been inconclusive and fraught with untoward side-effects .
Integrity not Politics in Science:
President Obama is correct to insist that integrity in scientific research is paramount and that the results of same not be adulterated or otherwise “spun” in order to advance certain political goals. However, his administration’s claims about ESCR represent an unfortunate example of that very problem. The hype with which today’s announcement and executive order were made regarding the purported efficacy of ESCR was excessive in light of the actual data available. Moreover, the extremely important results which have been obtained with Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) to date were completely ignored. This appears to have been a carefully calibrated political calculation.
Traditional Morality Removed from Scientific Research/Utilitarian Calculus:
The President reasons that it is high time to remove politics from science while engaging in that very practice himself. More to the point, what he really advocates is the removal of all traditional moral precepts (as found in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis also know as the golden-rule ethic or the equality of life ethic) from the practice of scientific research; replacing it with a Utilitarian calculus where expediency is allowed to trump all other considerations. In so doing he would effectively eliminate the possibility that desperately needed moral clarification will take place--despite claiming that his administration will be extremely careful to proceed in an ethical (read Utilitarian) manner. The point--one fears--is being missed by the vast majority of Americans who are unaware that Utilitarianism has replaced traditional morality as the reigning ethical (immoral/amoral) construct in the US. It is becoming more and more common-place to find examples of "exigent circumstances" (through the application of a Utilitarian ethic) whereby innocent human beings are being legally killed in the United States (particularly at both extremes of life). The President's executive order and request for Congress to pass legislation compatible with it represent a further descent down the slippery slope which began over 30 years ago in the United States. Whether we like it or not, as Americans, we're all Utilitarians now!
Obama Is Leaving Some Stem Cell Issues to Congress
Editor's NOTE:
If the following article is correct, President Obama will leave it to Congress to decide whether or not to attempt repeal of the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment--which specifically bans the use of tax dollars used to create human embryos for experimentation/research.
According to the piece below, the President's "order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded."
This means that it will become legal to utilize any already existent embryonic stem cell lines as well as those subsequently created either from already existent embryos or those "to be created embryos" brought into existence in fertility clinics. If Congress were to repeal the Dickey-Wicker amendment it would also allow federal funds to be spent in order to artificially produce human embryos destined for destruction in the process of removing their stem cells as well.
One of President Obama's science advisors Harold Varmus was quoted as saying the following with respect to the new executive order:
"As a result of lifting those limitations, the president is in effect allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the extent it's permitted by federal law -- that is work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of those stem cells,"
The morally significant issue is whether it is morally licit to destroy (read kill) human embryos for any reason. Traditional morality answers a resounding no. A Utilitarian calculus answers yes in essence arguing that the further "end" of potentially providing life-saving treatments for patients justifies the proximate end or "means" of killing innocent embryonic human beings in order to obtain their stem cells. The obvious question then is: what other human beings can be killed in order to serve some identified potentially desirable "further end"?
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The New York Times
Published: March 8, 2009
WASHINGTON — While lifting the Bush administration’s restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research, President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.
The officials, who provided details of the announcement Mr. Obama will make Monday at the White House, said the president would leave it to Congress to determine whether the long-standing legislative ban on federal financing for human embryo experiments should also be overturned.
Yet, people on both sides of the stem cell debate say Mr. Obama’s announcement could lead to a reconsideration of the ban on Capitol Hill, an idea so controversial and fraught with ethical implications that the mere discussion of it would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when President George W. Bush was in office.
The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.
For a time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will throw open the door much farther with an executive order that will “make clear that the government intends to support” human embryonic stem cell research, said Harold Varmus, the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who advises Mr. Obama on science matters.
To the delight of patients’ groups and scientists, the order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.
The order comes just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama’s economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies. But because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal researchers would still be unable to create their own stem cell lines.
Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it. Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research “should be done in compliance with federal law,” she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue.
“We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,” Ms. Barnes said.
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists and advocates for patients believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, like damage to the spinal cord.
Mr. Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded his 2001 policy.
Although Mr. Obama’s action on Monday has broad bipartisan support, it could still be overturned by a successor so House Democrats are expected to draft legislation that would codify the president’s executive order.
But with Mr. Obama revisiting the Bush policy, Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cell research, said Sunday in an interview that overturning the embryo experiment ban might not be as far-fetched as some critics imagine.
Ms. DeGette said the first move for lawmakers would be to turn the steps Mr. Obama takes by executive order on Monday into law. But she said she was also talking to her colleagues about overturning the broader Dickey-Wicker restriction.
“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” Ms. DeGette said. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”
A senior House Democratic leadership aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said overturning the ban “would be difficult, but not impossible,” adding, “It’s not something that we would do right away, but it’s something that we would look at.”
Fertility researchers also believe the climate is ripe to allow federal money for their work, especially in light of the recent controversy over the birth of octuplets in California, said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“I think we’re thrilled that the president is going to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Mr. Tipton said Sunday. “It is clear, though, that Congress needs to remove the restrictions it puts on other forms of embryo research.”
Already abortion opponents are bracing for a battle. “The administration now steps onto a very steep, very slippery slope,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “Many researchers will never be satisfied only with the so-called leftover embryos.”
One Republican lawmaker, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, is calling Mr. Obama “the abortion president,” and is planning his own event on Monday to protest Mr. Obama’s new stem cell policy.
Mr. Smith said in an interview Sunday that he did not think lawmakers would go along with overturning the embryo experiment ban.
“I don’t think it will fly because the movement in the country is in favor of life,” he said. “For Congress to say that the new guinea pig will be human embryos, most Americans will find that highly offensive.”
Mr. Obama’s announcement on Monday will be part of a broader initiative to make good on his pledge to separate science and politics. Dr. Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who is a co-chairman of a panel that advises Mr. Obama on science issues, said the president would issue a memorandum to “restore public confidence in the process by which scientific policy is used to guide government action,” by directing his administration to draft guidelines for the use of scientific information and the appointment of outside science advisers.
In reversing the stem cell policy Mr. Bush put in place in August 2001, Mr. Obama will direct the National Institutes of Health to come up with new stem cell research guidelines within 120 days.
Ms. DeGette said she is already talking to the White House about what legislation codifying the executive order might say.
“It’s a wonderful development tomorrow,” she said, “but it’s really the first step in opening up ethical cell-based research.”
If the following article is correct, President Obama will leave it to Congress to decide whether or not to attempt repeal of the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment--which specifically bans the use of tax dollars used to create human embryos for experimentation/research.
According to the piece below, the President's "order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded."
This means that it will become legal to utilize any already existent embryonic stem cell lines as well as those subsequently created either from already existent embryos or those "to be created embryos" brought into existence in fertility clinics. If Congress were to repeal the Dickey-Wicker amendment it would also allow federal funds to be spent in order to artificially produce human embryos destined for destruction in the process of removing their stem cells as well.
One of President Obama's science advisors Harold Varmus was quoted as saying the following with respect to the new executive order:
"As a result of lifting those limitations, the president is in effect allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the extent it's permitted by federal law -- that is work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of those stem cells,"
The morally significant issue is whether it is morally licit to destroy (read kill) human embryos for any reason. Traditional morality answers a resounding no. A Utilitarian calculus answers yes in essence arguing that the further "end" of potentially providing life-saving treatments for patients justifies the proximate end or "means" of killing innocent embryonic human beings in order to obtain their stem cells. The obvious question then is: what other human beings can be killed in order to serve some identified potentially desirable "further end"?
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The New York Times
Published: March 8, 2009
WASHINGTON — While lifting the Bush administration’s restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research, President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.
The officials, who provided details of the announcement Mr. Obama will make Monday at the White House, said the president would leave it to Congress to determine whether the long-standing legislative ban on federal financing for human embryo experiments should also be overturned.
Yet, people on both sides of the stem cell debate say Mr. Obama’s announcement could lead to a reconsideration of the ban on Capitol Hill, an idea so controversial and fraught with ethical implications that the mere discussion of it would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when President George W. Bush was in office.
The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.
For a time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will throw open the door much farther with an executive order that will “make clear that the government intends to support” human embryonic stem cell research, said Harold Varmus, the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who advises Mr. Obama on science matters.
To the delight of patients’ groups and scientists, the order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.
The order comes just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama’s economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies. But because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal researchers would still be unable to create their own stem cell lines.
Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it. Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research “should be done in compliance with federal law,” she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue.
“We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,” Ms. Barnes said.
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists and advocates for patients believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, like damage to the spinal cord.
Mr. Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded his 2001 policy.
Although Mr. Obama’s action on Monday has broad bipartisan support, it could still be overturned by a successor so House Democrats are expected to draft legislation that would codify the president’s executive order.
But with Mr. Obama revisiting the Bush policy, Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cell research, said Sunday in an interview that overturning the embryo experiment ban might not be as far-fetched as some critics imagine.
Ms. DeGette said the first move for lawmakers would be to turn the steps Mr. Obama takes by executive order on Monday into law. But she said she was also talking to her colleagues about overturning the broader Dickey-Wicker restriction.
“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” Ms. DeGette said. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”
A senior House Democratic leadership aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said overturning the ban “would be difficult, but not impossible,” adding, “It’s not something that we would do right away, but it’s something that we would look at.”
Fertility researchers also believe the climate is ripe to allow federal money for their work, especially in light of the recent controversy over the birth of octuplets in California, said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“I think we’re thrilled that the president is going to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Mr. Tipton said Sunday. “It is clear, though, that Congress needs to remove the restrictions it puts on other forms of embryo research.”
Already abortion opponents are bracing for a battle. “The administration now steps onto a very steep, very slippery slope,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “Many researchers will never be satisfied only with the so-called leftover embryos.”
One Republican lawmaker, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, is calling Mr. Obama “the abortion president,” and is planning his own event on Monday to protest Mr. Obama’s new stem cell policy.
Mr. Smith said in an interview Sunday that he did not think lawmakers would go along with overturning the embryo experiment ban.
“I don’t think it will fly because the movement in the country is in favor of life,” he said. “For Congress to say that the new guinea pig will be human embryos, most Americans will find that highly offensive.”
Mr. Obama’s announcement on Monday will be part of a broader initiative to make good on his pledge to separate science and politics. Dr. Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who is a co-chairman of a panel that advises Mr. Obama on science issues, said the president would issue a memorandum to “restore public confidence in the process by which scientific policy is used to guide government action,” by directing his administration to draft guidelines for the use of scientific information and the appointment of outside science advisers.
In reversing the stem cell policy Mr. Bush put in place in August 2001, Mr. Obama will direct the National Institutes of Health to come up with new stem cell research guidelines within 120 days.
Ms. DeGette said she is already talking to the White House about what legislation codifying the executive order might say.
“It’s a wonderful development tomorrow,” she said, “but it’s really the first step in opening up ethical cell-based research.”
Monday, February 9, 2009
Neo-Conservatism The New “Stealth” Order / World View
This essay is reproduced by special request of a reader.
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
A new “stealth” worldview has become popular among Secularists in the United States. It is referred to as Neoconservatism[1] and has been gaining influence for over 25 years in the wake of the discord and unrest associated with the 1960’s-1970’s and the Viet Nam War.[2] The original features of Neoconservatism are found below:
Table 1. 6 Propositions of Neoconservatism (First Generation)*
1. Theory of History- Evil exists and one must not shrink from one's duty.
2. Power- No substitute for it, especially military might. Power is Salvation.
3. America must be a Global leader- Creating a peaceful World requires "power." America is exceptional.
4. Respect for Authority is paramount- requires a “Religious” population best promoted through “traditional values.”
5. Constant Crisis Mode is necessary- the situation is always urgent and the need for action compelling. Disaster is always looming.
6. Leadership is the Antidote to “Crisis”- Leaders must Exercise power.
*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.
The author penned an essay originally available at TCR now at Lulu.com which outlined the two major worldviews which vie for ascendancy in the West; Secularism vs: Traditionalism.[3] It is fair to say that much of the Secularist agenda is either actively or passively embraced by the secular leaders of the neoconservative movement. Tragically many “hangers-on” including Evangelical Protestants and neo-conservative Catholics have yet to recognize that they have so to speak “hitched their wagons” to the Secularist camp by embracing the policies of the neoconservatives now in power, including the elites of both political parties. It is ironic indeed that neither has yet to appreciate the degree to which the neoconservative agenda is incompatible with their Traditionalist worldviews. In fact it is also fair to say that virtually all of the “hot-button” issues of our day are either significantly impacted or controlled by neoconservative ideology including American foreign and domestic policy. At its core, Neoconservatism embraces a Darwinian (survival of the fittest) mentality (epistemologically, metaphysically and morally) in which the historical reality of evil is recognized as foundational, the answer to which is overwhelming power (military and economic) and deception[4] of the masses.
Neo Conservatism and Morality:
In the moral realm for example, neoconservative thinking embraces the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in which the “ends” sought are allowed to justify the “means.” The author has written extensively as have many other moral philosophers who employ the Classical Aristotelian/Thomistic approach that utilitarianism is a completely inadequate moral philosophy for the solving of complex moral problems. The results obtained are almost always contrary to the Natural Law and Catholic moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. The following represents a summary in table form taken from one of the author’s formal presentations.
Table 2. Utilitarianism*
1.[Ends Justify Means] in pursuit of pleasure or “choice”. [Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill as part of British Empiricist movement in wake of Descartes “turn to subject” and abandonment of Aristotle’s “middle road” epistemology and his view of science in exchange for Newton’s mechanistic Cosmology.]
2. Non-moral theory in which the “greatest good” (aggregate pleasure) or benefit is sought for the greatest number, reduces to rabid notions of individual autonomy. Pragmatic, consequentialist, and detached from people as persons in the fullest sense of that term. Totally non-functional in practice unless Materialism is assumed.
3. Lacks explanatory power required for solving complex ethical dilemmas.
*Repudiated by JPII in Veritatis splendor under rubric of “Proportionalism” and “Consequentialism” Moral absolutes are rejected and Rom, 3: 8 is violated. Classical means/ends analysis is repudiated as is classical tripartite structure of moral act analysis.
Neoconservatism and the Law:
Utilitarianism frequently involves an absolute repudiation of the Natural Law in favor of the principles of the Enlightenment in that there are no fixed (Transcendent) truths which must be recognized or served. In fact this reality explains much of what functions as American neoconservative foreign and domestic policy including its approach to the U.S. constitution and the judiciary.
For example, neoconservatives pay lip service to the constitutional principle of “original intent” but in practice embrace legal (pragmatism) positivism (ultimately a Darwinian concept from its inception)[5] rather than grounding the civil law in the Natural Law and Divine Revelation as the Founders did. This means that all civil laws are changeable based on evolving social and moral standards. Thus we had President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts is a legal pragmatist tactician of superb ability who makes no bones about rejecting the principles of the Natural Law and Divine Revelation in functioning as a Judge. He recognizes no overarching (Transcendent or Touchstone) principles which are always and everywhere true. He stated clearly before the Senate Judiciary Committee that his judicial approach will be to consider the individual case before him the so-called “law of the case” with its legal precedent (Stare Decisis) first and foremost in his mind, irrespective of whether it violates the common morality and the Natural Law. Only thereafter will he consider other issues such as “workability” fairness and the like which might be considered for example in potentially overturning a standing or “settled” law.
Robert’s view of human anthropology (based on his writings and Senate Judiciary Committee testimony) is Darwinian/neo-conservative as well rather than traditionalist. He specifically denies being influenced by any “personal” (code for religious or moral) deeply held beliefs when functioning in his role as a jurist, making him a “secularist” in practice. Logic dictates that either he was honest in his testimony and therefore has no qualms about civil laws which contradict the Natural Law and Divine Revelation such as abortion, or he was purposely dishonest and evasive in order to be confirmed (a case of the “ends justify the means” that). In either case, he embraces utilitarianism rather than classical moral philosophy/Catholic moral theology and we can expect little help from him in reversing Roe v: Wade.
Neoconservatism and Economics:
In the economic realm neoconservatives are also Darwinian.[6] Most are devoted to the unbridled free market capitalism of Adam Smith where brute “market forces” are allowed (unfettered) to determine the landscape.[7] This system inherently predisposes to “haves” and “have-nots” a kind of bi-polar class system; the rich and the poor with very little long-term middle class existence or stability (where a tripartite class system insures a healthy middle class as is seen in “managed” capitalism sensitive to the concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity). The controlling economic gestalt as in foreign policy is “winning (overwhelming others) by the use of superior force and power” amounting to what is essentially a zero-sum game. Thus we see ever increasing consolidation of companies into mega-corporations and the creation of overpowering monopolies, case in point the large oil companies which engaged in “price-gouging” due to the effects of Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita. In order for some to become unconscionably rich, others must be poor, since there are only a finite number of resources available. Neoconservatives have absolutely no problem with this as is evidenced by the Bush administration Secretary of Energy’s comment that the oil companies are doing a good job after the Hurricanes (There profits had tripled in the following year).
As an example of the above, we have in the United States the largest differential worldwide when comparing the yearly compensation of CEO’s of major corporations and that of their lowest respective wage-earners. Catholic teaching holds that both communism and unbridled capitalism are morally evil since they are destructive of basic human dignity. Free Market Capitalism must be “managed” in light of the principles of the Natural Law and be sensitive to the true nature of “man” as created in the Imago Dei in order to be just.[8] Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena.[9] This explains why Americans tolerate the consumption and export of pornography in ever increasing numbers. There is absolutely no inhibition when it comes to generating income whether the so called “free enterprise is morally licit or not. The objectification of women and the young is encouraged (as part of inter-state commerce and ever larger profits; both being instrumentalized through seductive television, “bill-board” ads and motion pictures in order to maximize economic growth). All of this is perfectly compatible with Darwinian neoconservative economic policy and rabid unbridled free market capitalism. This is an example of utilizing persons not as “subjects” deserving of basic human dignity and respect but as objects to be used, abused and discarded (even secular Kantian's should cringe).
History:
The history of American Neoconservatism arguably dates to the early 20th century and several academic German/Jewish intellectuals including Professor Leo Strauss[10] who was purportedly a secular Zionist (Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Chicago) the philosophical progenitor of many contemporary public policy elites including several neoconservative Bush administration officials and other members of the Washington establishment in both political parties.[11] Strauss was an avid opponent of modern liberalism having been an admirer of Martin Heidegger and by extension Nietzsche’s philosophy (itself Darwinian).[12] It was later developed by several first generation neoconservatives including Norman Podhoretz[13] (for many years editor of Commentary) and Irving Kristol. Later, in the second generation came Irving’s son William (now editor of Commentary’s “replacement” The Weekly Standard), Michael Ledeen, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among others. The following represents a modification of the first generation neoconservative principles outlined above.
Table 3. 5 Propositions of Second Generation Neoconservatism*
1. American Global dominion is benign and other nations agree.
2. Failure of U.S. to sustain imperial status would result in global disorder.
3. Force works and must be used.
4. U.S. Military Supremacy is essential.
5. Idealism not Realism will achieve stated goals. (The Realist policies of Kissinger and Powell must be repudiated).
*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.
Andrew Bacevich has written well of American Neoconservatism;
“The conception of politics to which neoconservatives paid allegiance owed more to the ethos of the Left than to the orthodoxies of the Right. Their ultimate ideological objective was not to preserve but to transform. They viewed state power not as a necessary evil but as a positive good to be cultivated and then deployed in pursuit of large objectives.”[14]
“Their aim was nothing if not ambitious; to reverse the verdict of the 1960’s, to repair the political and cultural damage done by that decade, and ….to restore American power and assertiveness on the world stage.” [15]
It is clear from the above that many neoconservatives were former “leftists” who wished to transform society through revolution. As the Democratic party embraced pacifism and sexual libertinism in the 1960’ and 70’s, neoconservatives moved to the Republican Party with the goal of co-opting what had historically been a political party made up largely of paleoconservatives (traditional conservatives) and isolationist libertarians who eschewed foreign military escapades and “big government” spending. By ingeniously enlisting the aid of Protestant Evangelicals who despised what they viewed as a leftist led disintegration of Judeo-Christian morality and destruction of the military (for them a bastion of traditional values and morality), the neoconservatives succeeded in gaining control of the Republican Party and much of the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment in less than two decades. This was a phenomenal accomplishment by any standard.
It is important to recognize that the Republican Party and much of the Washington power elite are now controlled by neoconservatives. The term is oxymoronic in that there is almost nothing “conservative” about Neoconservatism. It does not wish to conserve anything least of all tradition. It is committed to increasing and projecting economic and military power. Its goal is to “transform” American society and the world along secular neoconservative (Darwinian “survival of the fittest) lines. This necessarily requires the use of a utilitarian “moral” philosophy which everyone should understand and ignore at their peril. Recall that utilitarianism is incompatible with Catholic Moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. See Pope John Paul II’s seminal work Veritatis Splendor (1993) for details including his repudiation of proportionalism, consequentialism etc.
Neoconservatism and Protestant Evangelicalism:
Bacevich cogently writes in his book that Protestant evangelicalism had a major role in increasing U.S. militarism/imperialism dating to the post-Vietnam era (due to its belief that the U.S. needed to be strong militarily in order to protect Israel against any and all aggression [a result of their pre-millennial dispensationalism] which is part of their understanding of the "end-time" tribulation scenario and their belief that Armageddon is imminent).[16] He argues that the secular “Neo-cons” teamed up with the Protestant Evangelicals to take over the Republican Party recognizing in them a powerful group they could co-opt for their plan to use the U.S. military as a tool for foreign “power projection” (domination). The neo-con's wished to bring American [democratic/actually imperialistic] "values" to the entire world through "force" if necessary in order to eliminate potential threats before they materialize as modern day Israel does.[17] This leads inexorably to the Bush Doctrine of preventive/pre-emptive war.[18] Perhaps the sine-quê-non of Neoconservatism as it is practiced today is the projection of American power abroad through use of the all professional voluntary U.S. military. This has also led to what Bacevich terms a growing American militarism/imperialism where the military is increasingly isolated from the public it serves.
Many social/cultural conservatives have wondered aloud why the Republican Party courts their votes at election time only to largely abandon them afterwards.[19] The answer in part can be found in the fact that neo-conservative secularists now completely control the Republican Party and they have teamed-up with Protestant Evangelicals in order to create a winning plurality. Secular neo-conservatives have for over two decades recognized that if they “played-along” with Evangelicals (in their quest to restore “moral values” to the U.S. by using the military triad of duty, honor, country as a template) they could utilize the power it conferred by engaging in an activist/hegemonic foreign policy.[20] In fact neoconservatives are enamored by religion and the fervor it inspires in achieving their goals. Few however are personally spiritually committed preferring to see religion as a sort of balm for the masses. All of this should not but unfortunately does come as a complete surprise to many Evangelicals and other cultural and paleo-conservatives. However, once the election is over, the “lip service” regarding “family and moral values” has been paid and it is back to business as usual (the pursuit of economic and military power), again alienating cultural and paleoconservatives and even some libertarian conservatives. Perhaps the only reason they remain loyal to the Party is due to the ineffectiveness of third party candidacies in the U.S. Needless to say, they derive next to nothing for their loyalty and support.
Foreign Policy:
Turning to the foreign policy initiatives of American Neoconservatism including the use of warfare in general as an extension of U.S. power and specifically the Iraq War, it is useful to engage in a formal moral analysis utilizing the “3” classical elements which are applicable to every moral decision. For a classical moral (philosophical) analysis of the so-called “preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War as a function of neoconservative foreign policy, the following is presented which is borrowed from the author’s “PowerPoint” presentation on a speech entitled: “Justice and Freedom for the Human Embryo” in which a similar moral analysis was carried out.
Table 4. 3 Classical Components of a Moral Decision*
1. The OBJECT freely specified [Chosen] (what it’s about),
proximate “end” (Species).** Also called “MEANS.”
2. The INTENT, motive or further “End” (Genus).
3. The CIRCUMSTANCES or situation.
*May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology. Second Edition, Huntington Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003, pp. 170-174. Aquinas held that all “3” must be licit in order for the moral act to be justified (S.T. 1-2, 18, entire question).
** Pope JPII, Veritatis splendor, 71-81, 1993. Specifically #78 “The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.” (Referencing Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 18, a. 6.)
It is readily apparent that there exist “3” classical elements which must be considered in each and every moral decision the object freely chosen (means) the intent (motive) and the circumstances. All “3” must be correctly specified and applied in order for the moral decision to be valid. With respect to the decision to engage in a preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq, the elements are properly depicted as follows:
Table 5. The “3” Components of a Moral Decision in the Preventive/Pre-emptive Iraq War*
1. Object freely specified, (Chosen), or Proximate “end”, also called “MEANS.”
Offensive Military “First Strike Lethality” to effect Iraqi Regime Change [Neo- Cons substitute “spreading democracy” and American “values” in the Middle East here] which is incorrect/deceptive in that accomplishing it requires a morally illicit [violent] “means” (technique or method) for dubiously “insuring” American security (the intent). The objective freely chosen is Offensive “First Strike Lethality” not “spreading democracy” in the Middle East.
2. Intent Motive or Further End.
Insure American Security and limit or eliminate Terrorism
3. Circumstances of Situation.
Terrorism and Reduced Security is the 21st Century Reality. Was there WMD in Iraq prior to invasion? (Analysis assumes a pre-invasion perspective).
The above demonstrates utilizing classical Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles why “elite” neo-conservative reasoning is in error with respect to waging the Iraq War. The actual “means” employed are evil that is morally illicit since they involve choosing to inflict “first-strike” offensive lethality upon a perceived enemy (contrary to the Just War Doctrine which allows for legitimate defense only and to Rom. 3: 8). “Spreading Democracy” while potential valuable, cannot be accomplished “defensively” by force. The two concepts are contradictory. Democracy can be proposed but not imposed. “Spreading Democracy” must be done passively (peacefully) to be morally licit. Since not all “3” of the elements in the moral triad above are valid, the conclusion is that a preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War is unjustified morally.
Some neoconservative moralists have argued that the neoconservative “Bush Doctrine” of preventive/pre-emptive war is an example of “Double Effect.” Therefore, it is necessary to review the classical requirements of same depicted below.
Table 6. “Double Effect” in Practice*
(Could Preventive War be “Double Effect”?)
1. The directly intended object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself) i.e. it must be a good action judged from its moral object.
2. The intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible (i.e. must only indirectly intend the harm).
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the foreseen harmful effects and be not achievable without them.
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects.
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.
*Principles of Double Effect from Finnis, John. Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991).
Answer: NO, #’s 1, 3, 4 & 5 are violated by engaging in Preventive/Pre-emptive war.
As can be readily appreciated, preventive/pre-emptive war violates # 1 above since it is always and everywhere wrong to purposely wage offensive war (by the tenets of the Just War Doctrine and sacred writ (Rom. 3: 8) that one must never do evil that good may come of it). In #2 above neoconservatives argue that they do not directly intend to harm innocents since they now utilize “smart weaponry.” However, they do intend to lethally harm the enemy combatants offensively rather than defensively by employing aggressively lethal offensive “means” through use of their weapons and they do kill innocent non-combatants as a matter of routine which is completely predictable and knowable in advance. One could give them the benefit of the doubt here regarding the intent not to harm innocents, however, the destructive nature of the “smart” weapons and the regularity of large numbers of innocent combatant deaths (in the thousands in Iraq) makes this difficult. In # 3 above, it is clear that the potential benefit of installing a friendly “democratic” regime in Iraq is had only by means of the foreseen harmful effect of invasion, thus violating it. Number 4 has been violated in that the harmful effects in Iraq are horrendous by any conceivable standard and for the foreseeable future outweigh any potential positive benefit. Number 5 has been violated because the harmful effects have immediately followed the action without significant beneficial effect to date. There can be no advantage to a democratically elected interim government which is unable to provide basic infrastructure and security for its people since it has failed in it duty to govern. In that regard they are worse off than prior to the invasion. Therefore, it is clear that the preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq is not an example of double effect.
In light of the above, it is now necessary to state clearly that the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption/preventive war is fundamentally incompatible with the Just War Doctrine[21] and with Catholic teaching on war as it has been continuously promulgated by the Magisterium. The Just War Doctrine is reproduced here as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Table 7. “Just War Doctrine” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 2309)
1. The strict conditions for legitimate defense (emphasis mine) 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: \
2. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
3. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
4. There must be serious prospects of success;
5. 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.
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”[22]
Catholics and the Iraq War
The author is well aware that a significant number of American neoconservative Catholic moralists utilizing the above criteria have concluded that the Iraq War is “just” and compatible with the JWD properly applied. Please see my essay [now contained in my book War, Peace and Terrorism: A Return to Sanity in a Post- 9/11 World now available at Lulu.com] entitled; “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? for a response and refutation of that position.[23] In that regard the reader is reminded that multiple and consistent Vatican statements were promulgated by the Magisterium in protest of the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq, meaning that despite the high level Vatican visit of Catholic neoconservative Michael Novak on behalf of the U.S. administration, the Magisterium rejected the U.S. argument for preventive war. This means that American Catholic neoconservatives are at odds with the historical/traditional position which the Church has taken on “Just War” as well as the recent reiteration of same by the Magisterium. In fact the neo-conservative attempt (depicted above) to morph legitimate “defense” against aggression into preventive/pre-emptive (offensive) war is tantamount to metaphysical slight of hand that is; sophistry designed to justify a new (neo-conservative) approach to the projection of American hegemony through the use of military power whether recognized by the respective Catholic neoconservatives or not.[24] The result has been an increasingly aggressive imperial foreign policy and a repudiation of Just War Doctrinal principles where offensive use of military force is utilized to advance perceived American “interests” abroad[25] These “interests” too often reduce to simple greed which in the case of Iraq includes American dependence on Gulf Oil for the maintenance of an overly indulgent use of total world resources. Needless to say it is an extremely dangerous course and one which few Americans fully understand.
Unfortunately, some seemingly misguided pro-Iraq War neoconservative Catholic moralists who support the secularist neo-conservative stance on the Iraq War have also argued (apparently on the basis of language in the CCC) that the decision to wage war is a prudential one which is appropriately made only by the civil authorities who bear the ultimate responsibility for the common good (see quotation in Table 7 above).[26] While this is technically true it is only instrumentally so. As this author wrote in another essay:
”In a representative democracy, issues of public policy are debated and subjected to a vote of the citizenry, after which initiatives are enacted primarily through their elected representatives including the President. This cannot be accomplished without the populous being adequately informed and their wishes being known. Thus it is clear that the public has a responsibility for evaluating the moral licitness of any potential war prior to its being waged and after it has commenced. It is vital that the population remain engaged enough to provide the necessary oversight and re-evaluation as war is waged. What may be justified initially may not remain so due to changes “on the ground.” Therefore, the argument that war-making is a prudential judgment of the responsible authorities only is very misleading and results in wrongly absolving from moral responsibility the population in whose name it is waged.”[27]
Tragically many Catholic rank and file “Neo-con's” have “bought into” the entire secularist neoconservative/Evangelical enterprise not recognizing that much of it including the foreign military policy portion of neo-conservatism is contrary to Catholic teaching. It is based on a Calvinist rendering of scripture grounded as it is in the TULIP doctrine the first principle of which is “Total Moral Depravity” that is, since the “fall from grace” human beings are hopelessly lost despite an initial very good Creation. The Catholic position instead is more balanced and holds that human beings are seriously wounded but not totally depraved and continues to see good in the created realm including some good in every human life since all are created in the Imago Dei whether friend or foe, saint or sinner. Calvinist/neoconservative apologists utilize a largely Old Testament (e.g. pro-capital punishment as found in the Pentateuch) understanding of morality which also stresses the concept of total moral depravity thus tending to view the world in a bi-polar way that is; good vs: bad, saints vs: sinners, right vs: wrong, us vs: them. This ironically is actually quite consistent with the secularist neoconservative (Darwinist) view of “might makes right” and the historical reality of “evil” that remains a pillar of neoconservative philosophy (how ironic that most evangelical's detest Darwin and yet many embrace Darwinian (neoconservative) policies).
The Catholic view makes use of the Socratic/Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis and avoids the post-Enlightenment [a substitute for Christianity] (Mills and Humean) adversarial culture (based as it is in the utilitarian and empirical approach in which no transcendent absolute truths exist). It is worth noting that the U.S. inherited this tradition from Great Britain being that the original Americans and Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Enlightenment and influenced by the British Empiricist movement. Tragically, most Evangelicals and neoconservative Catholics are apparently unaware of this.[28]
The Catholic position again is more nuanced recognizing that each human being is a work in progress and with sanctifying grace can eventually partake of the beatific vision via a process of continued conversion through the power of the Holy Spirit. Due to their Calvinist hermeneutic, Evangelical neoconservatives often conceive of "offensive" military might as evincing the hand of God at work in favoring a “chosen people.” Andrew Bacevich writes that Evangelical's saw this Old Testament pattern played out again in modern Israel’s “preventive” invasion of Lebanon and their pre-emptive/prophylactic bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, in which the Israeli’s employed “offensive action” (not limiting themselves to defensive actions compatible with "Just War” doctrine) in order to prevent or avert a perceived threat.[29] Given Evangelical’s (Calvinist) experience with modern Israel’s “successful” preventive attacks, and their belief that the United States represents the “New Jerusalem” the “shining city upon a hill” with a manifest destiny to rule the world until the rise of the revived Roman Empire and the anti-Christ, this Old Testament hermeneutic was readily assimilable to an aggressive (neoconservative) foreign military policy of imperialism or “might makes right.”
Bacevich effectively argues in the author’s estimation that Evangelical’s assent to both Israeli offensive actions signaled for neoconservatives the acceptance of a total redefinition of classic/historical Just War Doctrinal principles (which previously sanctioned only defensive actions).[30] In way of clarification, neoconservatives and their evangelical partners no longer accept "Just War" principles as classically understood and neither does modern Israel. Both have been granted a sort of “chosen” status (what Bacevich refers to as a special dispensation) which renders a strict application of the JWD gratuitous. They have redefined “defense” to include “preventive attacks” based upon a probability calculus that is heavily dependent on “intelligence” factors which have now been shown to be unreliable. Thus it is apparent that well catechized Catholics should have recognized the “Bush Doctrine” as incompatible with the Catholic faith through the use of reason and by the consistent statements promulgated by the Vatican.
Catholic teaching interprets the Old Testament in light of the New and in light of the reality of the incarnated Christ who advocated conversion of heart (soul) as well as peaceful.[31] evangelism (propose the Gospel not impose it). Christ renounced the Old Testament practice of capital punishment when presented with a concrete example in which the old law called for it.[32] Christ also repudiated adherence to the “letter of the law” without proper attention to its “spirit” and redressed the Pharisees and Sadducee's for failing to “practice what they preached.” In HIS very person Christ embodied the progressive arrow of non-violence and mercy (rather than the simple justice of an “eye for an eye”) which followed the march of history from the earliest Patriarchal period to the time of the Roman Empire during which He lived. The Calvinist (false Augustinian) emphasis on Old Testament morality which is integral to Protestant Evangelicalism and is endorsed by secular neoconservatives is therefore contrary to orthodox Catholicism as it has been handed down for almost 2000 years. It would be well for “Catholic” neoconservatives to reflect on this reality.
It is apparent then that the elites who presently control foreign and domestic policy (represented by the leaders of both political parties) in the United States are wedded to a secular worldview in which economic and military power is the paramount goal. Their neoconservative “movement” represents a new stealth 21st century pagan (post-enlightenment) “Secularism.” It is evident that they have shrewdly enlisted many unsuspecting Protestant Evangelicals, and politically conservative “Catholics” as well as dissatisfied paleo-conservatives and libertarian conservatives and independents in their cause. The “movement” is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Catholicism rightly understood. It behooves faithful Catholics to shine the light of transparency on what is increasingly an immoral enterprise.
NOTES:
[1] Neoconservatism has 6 basic tenets in its original form, 5 according to the second generation of neoconservatives now in power. It bears very little resemblance to classical (Paleo) conservatism which favored conservative social, economic and foreign policy. Neoconservatives favor an aggressive foreign policy which utilizes military power to spread American “democratic” values and only tacitly supports conservative social and cultural policies for politically expedient reasons, such as its embracing of the “values” of Protestant Evangelical's and like-minded neoconservative Catholics. It embraces large budgets particularly in the service of military spending in order to insure the ability to project American power abroad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States) for further details; See also: Irving Kristol, “The Neo-Conservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.” The Weekly Standard, Volume 008, Issue 47, August 8, 2003; Irving Kristol. Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. (New York: The Free Press, 1995) .
[2] Interestingly enough, neoconservative ideas now permeate both Democrat and Republican Parties and are promulgated by adherents of each. Thus irrespective of which Party controls Congress or the Executive Branch, neoconservative ideas prevail.
[3] See my “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” formerly at TCR http://www.tcrnews2.com/genworld.html now at Lulu.com.
[4] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
[5] J.P. Hubert MD FACS “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” at Lulu.com
[6] In contradistinction to paleoconservatives who while economically competitive had a basic historical commitment to the Judeo-Christian ethic, including fixed notions of right and wrong as well as fair-play.
[7] This is obviously incompatible with Catholic social teaching.
[8] This includes a proper balance between solidarity and subsidiarity as well as an equitable distribution of the world’s limited resources.
[9] Occasionally, neoconservatives propose initiatives which are compatible with Catholic teaching both in terms of solidarity and subsidiarity e.g. the Bush administration’s “Faith-Based Initiative.”
[10] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/; for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Life. [11] E.g. Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense now Head of the World Bank, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone. Other Bush administration officials who are sympathetic to neoconservative views include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This list is not exhaustive.
[12] Martin Heidegger, (1889-1976) was a German philosopher, who was one of the developers of existential phenomenology. He was a student of Edmund Husserl, studied Roman Catholic theology and then philosophy at the University of Freiburg, where he became the “founder” of phenomenology. Besides Husserl, Heidegger was especially influenced by the pre-Socratics (rather than Socrates, Plato or Aristotle), by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. For more information see: http://www.connect.net/ron/heid.html.
[13] Norman Podhoretz. Making It (New York, 1967), Breaking Ranks (New York, 1979), Ex-Friends (New York, 1999).
[14] Bacevich, Andrew J, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005), p. 71. [15] Ibid, p. 70.
[16] This view holds that Christ’s return does not occur until after the Jews (Israel) return to the “promised land” (1948 from their perspective). Purportedly, the eschatological clock is started after a peace treaty is made through the intercession of a powerful world leader (the anti-Christ) which insures the safety and security of the Jews. This begins a 7 year period the first half of which is a 3 ½ year period of “minor” tribulation. It is followed by the desecration of the newly rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem (by the anti-Christ who declares himself God on Earth). It requires that the Jews have effective control of Jerusalem in order to re-build the Jewish Temple in which this occurs. This explains why Evangelicals violently oppose any Israeli/Palestinian solution which deprives Israel of the Temple-mount in Jerusalem. The major period of distress the so-called major or Great Tribulation then continues for the last 3 ½ years until the battle of Armageddon and the literal return of Christ to the Earth after which HE initiates a literal/physical thousand year reign. This scenario is completely incompatible with Catholic teaching on eschatology which among other things denies that Christ will reign physically on earth for one thousand years after HIS glorious return.
[17] Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, 2005.
[18] Charles Krauthammer, “The Bush Doctrine,” Weekly Standard, June 4, 2001. [19] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 136.
[20] Ibid, pp. 69-96.
[21] See my “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? Available as a chapter in my above referenced book at Lulu.com, for a discussion of the Just War Doctrine and ethical implications.
[22] CCC # 2265 p.545 “Letitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” [This should not be taken to mean that citizens residing in a nation state are immune or exempt from a reasoned evaluation of the case for war which in itself would be an abdication of their own sacred responsibility to “do good and avoid evil.” In a representative democracy (Republic) the lack of requisite citizen support for war makes it effectively (practically) impossible for the authorities to carry out, JPHJ].
[23] Ibid.
[24] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available in my above referenced book at Lulu.com.
[25] Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005).
[26] See Mark and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected” Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July-August 2003; George Weigel, “The Just War Case for War” America, March 31, 2003; See for some earlier neoconservative writing by George Weigel, “On the Road to Isolationism?” Commentary 93 (January 1992).
[27] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available at Lulu.com as a chapter in my above referenced book.
[28] Note the British and American legal systems are both adversarial rather than Socratic where determining the “truth” is more a function of lawyerly competence then any mutual attempt to reason and arrive at the truth. Facts are what can be admitted into evidence as determined by the judge at the trial court level and become “fixed” as part of the “law of the case.” Courts of Appeals rarely review the original “facts” as they failed to do in the Schiavo case. This methodology is also seen in the debate format Television shows that have featured bi-polar shouting matches in which complex topics are reduced to bi-polar “sound-bites.”
[29] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 133.
[30] Ibid, p.134.
[31] Scripture includes only one example where it appears that Christ became "angry" and could have been perceived as non-peaceful (HIS response to the money-changers in HIS Father’s house).
[32] See John 8: 3-11 for Christ’s rejection of the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. At the time the letter of the Hebrew Law called for “stoning” the woman to death.
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
A new “stealth” worldview has become popular among Secularists in the United States. It is referred to as Neoconservatism[1] and has been gaining influence for over 25 years in the wake of the discord and unrest associated with the 1960’s-1970’s and the Viet Nam War.[2] The original features of Neoconservatism are found below:
Table 1. 6 Propositions of Neoconservatism (First Generation)*
1. Theory of History- Evil exists and one must not shrink from one's duty.
2. Power- No substitute for it, especially military might. Power is Salvation.
3. America must be a Global leader- Creating a peaceful World requires "power." America is exceptional.
4. Respect for Authority is paramount- requires a “Religious” population best promoted through “traditional values.”
5. Constant Crisis Mode is necessary- the situation is always urgent and the need for action compelling. Disaster is always looming.
6. Leadership is the Antidote to “Crisis”- Leaders must Exercise power.
*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.
The author penned an essay originally available at TCR now at Lulu.com which outlined the two major worldviews which vie for ascendancy in the West; Secularism vs: Traditionalism.[3] It is fair to say that much of the Secularist agenda is either actively or passively embraced by the secular leaders of the neoconservative movement. Tragically many “hangers-on” including Evangelical Protestants and neo-conservative Catholics have yet to recognize that they have so to speak “hitched their wagons” to the Secularist camp by embracing the policies of the neoconservatives now in power, including the elites of both political parties. It is ironic indeed that neither has yet to appreciate the degree to which the neoconservative agenda is incompatible with their Traditionalist worldviews. In fact it is also fair to say that virtually all of the “hot-button” issues of our day are either significantly impacted or controlled by neoconservative ideology including American foreign and domestic policy. At its core, Neoconservatism embraces a Darwinian (survival of the fittest) mentality (epistemologically, metaphysically and morally) in which the historical reality of evil is recognized as foundational, the answer to which is overwhelming power (military and economic) and deception[4] of the masses.
Neo Conservatism and Morality:
In the moral realm for example, neoconservative thinking embraces the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in which the “ends” sought are allowed to justify the “means.” The author has written extensively as have many other moral philosophers who employ the Classical Aristotelian/Thomistic approach that utilitarianism is a completely inadequate moral philosophy for the solving of complex moral problems. The results obtained are almost always contrary to the Natural Law and Catholic moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. The following represents a summary in table form taken from one of the author’s formal presentations.
Table 2. Utilitarianism*
1.[Ends Justify Means] in pursuit of pleasure or “choice”. [Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill as part of British Empiricist movement in wake of Descartes “turn to subject” and abandonment of Aristotle’s “middle road” epistemology and his view of science in exchange for Newton’s mechanistic Cosmology.]
2. Non-moral theory in which the “greatest good” (aggregate pleasure) or benefit is sought for the greatest number, reduces to rabid notions of individual autonomy. Pragmatic, consequentialist, and detached from people as persons in the fullest sense of that term. Totally non-functional in practice unless Materialism is assumed.
3. Lacks explanatory power required for solving complex ethical dilemmas.
*Repudiated by JPII in Veritatis splendor under rubric of “Proportionalism” and “Consequentialism” Moral absolutes are rejected and Rom, 3: 8 is violated. Classical means/ends analysis is repudiated as is classical tripartite structure of moral act analysis.
Neoconservatism and the Law:
Utilitarianism frequently involves an absolute repudiation of the Natural Law in favor of the principles of the Enlightenment in that there are no fixed (Transcendent) truths which must be recognized or served. In fact this reality explains much of what functions as American neoconservative foreign and domestic policy including its approach to the U.S. constitution and the judiciary.
For example, neoconservatives pay lip service to the constitutional principle of “original intent” but in practice embrace legal (pragmatism) positivism (ultimately a Darwinian concept from its inception)[5] rather than grounding the civil law in the Natural Law and Divine Revelation as the Founders did. This means that all civil laws are changeable based on evolving social and moral standards. Thus we had President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts is a legal pragmatist tactician of superb ability who makes no bones about rejecting the principles of the Natural Law and Divine Revelation in functioning as a Judge. He recognizes no overarching (Transcendent or Touchstone) principles which are always and everywhere true. He stated clearly before the Senate Judiciary Committee that his judicial approach will be to consider the individual case before him the so-called “law of the case” with its legal precedent (Stare Decisis) first and foremost in his mind, irrespective of whether it violates the common morality and the Natural Law. Only thereafter will he consider other issues such as “workability” fairness and the like which might be considered for example in potentially overturning a standing or “settled” law.
Robert’s view of human anthropology (based on his writings and Senate Judiciary Committee testimony) is Darwinian/neo-conservative as well rather than traditionalist. He specifically denies being influenced by any “personal” (code for religious or moral) deeply held beliefs when functioning in his role as a jurist, making him a “secularist” in practice. Logic dictates that either he was honest in his testimony and therefore has no qualms about civil laws which contradict the Natural Law and Divine Revelation such as abortion, or he was purposely dishonest and evasive in order to be confirmed (a case of the “ends justify the means” that). In either case, he embraces utilitarianism rather than classical moral philosophy/Catholic moral theology and we can expect little help from him in reversing Roe v: Wade.
Neoconservatism and Economics:
In the economic realm neoconservatives are also Darwinian.[6] Most are devoted to the unbridled free market capitalism of Adam Smith where brute “market forces” are allowed (unfettered) to determine the landscape.[7] This system inherently predisposes to “haves” and “have-nots” a kind of bi-polar class system; the rich and the poor with very little long-term middle class existence or stability (where a tripartite class system insures a healthy middle class as is seen in “managed” capitalism sensitive to the concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity). The controlling economic gestalt as in foreign policy is “winning (overwhelming others) by the use of superior force and power” amounting to what is essentially a zero-sum game. Thus we see ever increasing consolidation of companies into mega-corporations and the creation of overpowering monopolies, case in point the large oil companies which engaged in “price-gouging” due to the effects of Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita. In order for some to become unconscionably rich, others must be poor, since there are only a finite number of resources available. Neoconservatives have absolutely no problem with this as is evidenced by the Bush administration Secretary of Energy’s comment that the oil companies are doing a good job after the Hurricanes (There profits had tripled in the following year).
As an example of the above, we have in the United States the largest differential worldwide when comparing the yearly compensation of CEO’s of major corporations and that of their lowest respective wage-earners. Catholic teaching holds that both communism and unbridled capitalism are morally evil since they are destructive of basic human dignity. Free Market Capitalism must be “managed” in light of the principles of the Natural Law and be sensitive to the true nature of “man” as created in the Imago Dei in order to be just.[8] Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena.[9] This explains why Americans tolerate the consumption and export of pornography in ever increasing numbers. There is absolutely no inhibition when it comes to generating income whether the so called “free enterprise is morally licit or not. The objectification of women and the young is encouraged (as part of inter-state commerce and ever larger profits; both being instrumentalized through seductive television, “bill-board” ads and motion pictures in order to maximize economic growth). All of this is perfectly compatible with Darwinian neoconservative economic policy and rabid unbridled free market capitalism. This is an example of utilizing persons not as “subjects” deserving of basic human dignity and respect but as objects to be used, abused and discarded (even secular Kantian's should cringe).
History:
The history of American Neoconservatism arguably dates to the early 20th century and several academic German/Jewish intellectuals including Professor Leo Strauss[10] who was purportedly a secular Zionist (Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Chicago) the philosophical progenitor of many contemporary public policy elites including several neoconservative Bush administration officials and other members of the Washington establishment in both political parties.[11] Strauss was an avid opponent of modern liberalism having been an admirer of Martin Heidegger and by extension Nietzsche’s philosophy (itself Darwinian).[12] It was later developed by several first generation neoconservatives including Norman Podhoretz[13] (for many years editor of Commentary) and Irving Kristol. Later, in the second generation came Irving’s son William (now editor of Commentary’s “replacement” The Weekly Standard), Michael Ledeen, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among others. The following represents a modification of the first generation neoconservative principles outlined above.
Table 3. 5 Propositions of Second Generation Neoconservatism*
1. American Global dominion is benign and other nations agree.
2. Failure of U.S. to sustain imperial status would result in global disorder.
3. Force works and must be used.
4. U.S. Military Supremacy is essential.
5. Idealism not Realism will achieve stated goals. (The Realist policies of Kissinger and Powell must be repudiated).
*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.
Andrew Bacevich has written well of American Neoconservatism;
“The conception of politics to which neoconservatives paid allegiance owed more to the ethos of the Left than to the orthodoxies of the Right. Their ultimate ideological objective was not to preserve but to transform. They viewed state power not as a necessary evil but as a positive good to be cultivated and then deployed in pursuit of large objectives.”[14]
“Their aim was nothing if not ambitious; to reverse the verdict of the 1960’s, to repair the political and cultural damage done by that decade, and ….to restore American power and assertiveness on the world stage.” [15]
It is clear from the above that many neoconservatives were former “leftists” who wished to transform society through revolution. As the Democratic party embraced pacifism and sexual libertinism in the 1960’ and 70’s, neoconservatives moved to the Republican Party with the goal of co-opting what had historically been a political party made up largely of paleoconservatives (traditional conservatives) and isolationist libertarians who eschewed foreign military escapades and “big government” spending. By ingeniously enlisting the aid of Protestant Evangelicals who despised what they viewed as a leftist led disintegration of Judeo-Christian morality and destruction of the military (for them a bastion of traditional values and morality), the neoconservatives succeeded in gaining control of the Republican Party and much of the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment in less than two decades. This was a phenomenal accomplishment by any standard.
It is important to recognize that the Republican Party and much of the Washington power elite are now controlled by neoconservatives. The term is oxymoronic in that there is almost nothing “conservative” about Neoconservatism. It does not wish to conserve anything least of all tradition. It is committed to increasing and projecting economic and military power. Its goal is to “transform” American society and the world along secular neoconservative (Darwinian “survival of the fittest) lines. This necessarily requires the use of a utilitarian “moral” philosophy which everyone should understand and ignore at their peril. Recall that utilitarianism is incompatible with Catholic Moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. See Pope John Paul II’s seminal work Veritatis Splendor (1993) for details including his repudiation of proportionalism, consequentialism etc.
Neoconservatism and Protestant Evangelicalism:
Bacevich cogently writes in his book that Protestant evangelicalism had a major role in increasing U.S. militarism/imperialism dating to the post-Vietnam era (due to its belief that the U.S. needed to be strong militarily in order to protect Israel against any and all aggression [a result of their pre-millennial dispensationalism] which is part of their understanding of the "end-time" tribulation scenario and their belief that Armageddon is imminent).[16] He argues that the secular “Neo-cons” teamed up with the Protestant Evangelicals to take over the Republican Party recognizing in them a powerful group they could co-opt for their plan to use the U.S. military as a tool for foreign “power projection” (domination). The neo-con's wished to bring American [democratic/actually imperialistic] "values" to the entire world through "force" if necessary in order to eliminate potential threats before they materialize as modern day Israel does.[17] This leads inexorably to the Bush Doctrine of preventive/pre-emptive war.[18] Perhaps the sine-quê-non of Neoconservatism as it is practiced today is the projection of American power abroad through use of the all professional voluntary U.S. military. This has also led to what Bacevich terms a growing American militarism/imperialism where the military is increasingly isolated from the public it serves.
Many social/cultural conservatives have wondered aloud why the Republican Party courts their votes at election time only to largely abandon them afterwards.[19] The answer in part can be found in the fact that neo-conservative secularists now completely control the Republican Party and they have teamed-up with Protestant Evangelicals in order to create a winning plurality. Secular neo-conservatives have for over two decades recognized that if they “played-along” with Evangelicals (in their quest to restore “moral values” to the U.S. by using the military triad of duty, honor, country as a template) they could utilize the power it conferred by engaging in an activist/hegemonic foreign policy.[20] In fact neoconservatives are enamored by religion and the fervor it inspires in achieving their goals. Few however are personally spiritually committed preferring to see religion as a sort of balm for the masses. All of this should not but unfortunately does come as a complete surprise to many Evangelicals and other cultural and paleo-conservatives. However, once the election is over, the “lip service” regarding “family and moral values” has been paid and it is back to business as usual (the pursuit of economic and military power), again alienating cultural and paleoconservatives and even some libertarian conservatives. Perhaps the only reason they remain loyal to the Party is due to the ineffectiveness of third party candidacies in the U.S. Needless to say, they derive next to nothing for their loyalty and support.
Foreign Policy:
Turning to the foreign policy initiatives of American Neoconservatism including the use of warfare in general as an extension of U.S. power and specifically the Iraq War, it is useful to engage in a formal moral analysis utilizing the “3” classical elements which are applicable to every moral decision. For a classical moral (philosophical) analysis of the so-called “preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War as a function of neoconservative foreign policy, the following is presented which is borrowed from the author’s “PowerPoint” presentation on a speech entitled: “Justice and Freedom for the Human Embryo” in which a similar moral analysis was carried out.
Table 4. 3 Classical Components of a Moral Decision*
1. The OBJECT freely specified [Chosen] (what it’s about),
proximate “end” (Species).** Also called “MEANS.”
2. The INTENT, motive or further “End” (Genus).
3. The CIRCUMSTANCES or situation.
*May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology. Second Edition, Huntington Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003, pp. 170-174. Aquinas held that all “3” must be licit in order for the moral act to be justified (S.T. 1-2, 18, entire question).
** Pope JPII, Veritatis splendor, 71-81, 1993. Specifically #78 “The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.” (Referencing Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 18, a. 6.)
It is readily apparent that there exist “3” classical elements which must be considered in each and every moral decision the object freely chosen (means) the intent (motive) and the circumstances. All “3” must be correctly specified and applied in order for the moral decision to be valid. With respect to the decision to engage in a preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq, the elements are properly depicted as follows:
Table 5. The “3” Components of a Moral Decision in the Preventive/Pre-emptive Iraq War*
1. Object freely specified, (Chosen), or Proximate “end”, also called “MEANS.”
Offensive Military “First Strike Lethality” to effect Iraqi Regime Change [Neo- Cons substitute “spreading democracy” and American “values” in the Middle East here] which is incorrect/deceptive in that accomplishing it requires a morally illicit [violent] “means” (technique or method) for dubiously “insuring” American security (the intent). The objective freely chosen is Offensive “First Strike Lethality” not “spreading democracy” in the Middle East.
2. Intent Motive or Further End.
Insure American Security and limit or eliminate Terrorism
3. Circumstances of Situation.
Terrorism and Reduced Security is the 21st Century Reality. Was there WMD in Iraq prior to invasion? (Analysis assumes a pre-invasion perspective).
The above demonstrates utilizing classical Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles why “elite” neo-conservative reasoning is in error with respect to waging the Iraq War. The actual “means” employed are evil that is morally illicit since they involve choosing to inflict “first-strike” offensive lethality upon a perceived enemy (contrary to the Just War Doctrine which allows for legitimate defense only and to Rom. 3: 8). “Spreading Democracy” while potential valuable, cannot be accomplished “defensively” by force. The two concepts are contradictory. Democracy can be proposed but not imposed. “Spreading Democracy” must be done passively (peacefully) to be morally licit. Since not all “3” of the elements in the moral triad above are valid, the conclusion is that a preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War is unjustified morally.
Some neoconservative moralists have argued that the neoconservative “Bush Doctrine” of preventive/pre-emptive war is an example of “Double Effect.” Therefore, it is necessary to review the classical requirements of same depicted below.
Table 6. “Double Effect” in Practice*
(Could Preventive War be “Double Effect”?)
1. The directly intended object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself) i.e. it must be a good action judged from its moral object.
2. The intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible (i.e. must only indirectly intend the harm).
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the foreseen harmful effects and be not achievable without them.
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects.
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.
*Principles of Double Effect from Finnis, John. Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991).
Answer: NO, #’s 1, 3, 4 & 5 are violated by engaging in Preventive/Pre-emptive war.
As can be readily appreciated, preventive/pre-emptive war violates # 1 above since it is always and everywhere wrong to purposely wage offensive war (by the tenets of the Just War Doctrine and sacred writ (Rom. 3: 8) that one must never do evil that good may come of it). In #2 above neoconservatives argue that they do not directly intend to harm innocents since they now utilize “smart weaponry.” However, they do intend to lethally harm the enemy combatants offensively rather than defensively by employing aggressively lethal offensive “means” through use of their weapons and they do kill innocent non-combatants as a matter of routine which is completely predictable and knowable in advance. One could give them the benefit of the doubt here regarding the intent not to harm innocents, however, the destructive nature of the “smart” weapons and the regularity of large numbers of innocent combatant deaths (in the thousands in Iraq) makes this difficult. In # 3 above, it is clear that the potential benefit of installing a friendly “democratic” regime in Iraq is had only by means of the foreseen harmful effect of invasion, thus violating it. Number 4 has been violated in that the harmful effects in Iraq are horrendous by any conceivable standard and for the foreseeable future outweigh any potential positive benefit. Number 5 has been violated because the harmful effects have immediately followed the action without significant beneficial effect to date. There can be no advantage to a democratically elected interim government which is unable to provide basic infrastructure and security for its people since it has failed in it duty to govern. In that regard they are worse off than prior to the invasion. Therefore, it is clear that the preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq is not an example of double effect.
In light of the above, it is now necessary to state clearly that the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption/preventive war is fundamentally incompatible with the Just War Doctrine[21] and with Catholic teaching on war as it has been continuously promulgated by the Magisterium. The Just War Doctrine is reproduced here as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Table 7. “Just War Doctrine” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 2309)
1. The strict conditions for legitimate defense (emphasis mine) 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: \
2. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
3. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
4. There must be serious prospects of success;
5. 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.
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”[22]
Catholics and the Iraq War
The author is well aware that a significant number of American neoconservative Catholic moralists utilizing the above criteria have concluded that the Iraq War is “just” and compatible with the JWD properly applied. Please see my essay [now contained in my book War, Peace and Terrorism: A Return to Sanity in a Post- 9/11 World now available at Lulu.com] entitled; “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? for a response and refutation of that position.[23] In that regard the reader is reminded that multiple and consistent Vatican statements were promulgated by the Magisterium in protest of the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq, meaning that despite the high level Vatican visit of Catholic neoconservative Michael Novak on behalf of the U.S. administration, the Magisterium rejected the U.S. argument for preventive war. This means that American Catholic neoconservatives are at odds with the historical/traditional position which the Church has taken on “Just War” as well as the recent reiteration of same by the Magisterium. In fact the neo-conservative attempt (depicted above) to morph legitimate “defense” against aggression into preventive/pre-emptive (offensive) war is tantamount to metaphysical slight of hand that is; sophistry designed to justify a new (neo-conservative) approach to the projection of American hegemony through the use of military power whether recognized by the respective Catholic neoconservatives or not.[24] The result has been an increasingly aggressive imperial foreign policy and a repudiation of Just War Doctrinal principles where offensive use of military force is utilized to advance perceived American “interests” abroad[25] These “interests” too often reduce to simple greed which in the case of Iraq includes American dependence on Gulf Oil for the maintenance of an overly indulgent use of total world resources. Needless to say it is an extremely dangerous course and one which few Americans fully understand.
Unfortunately, some seemingly misguided pro-Iraq War neoconservative Catholic moralists who support the secularist neo-conservative stance on the Iraq War have also argued (apparently on the basis of language in the CCC) that the decision to wage war is a prudential one which is appropriately made only by the civil authorities who bear the ultimate responsibility for the common good (see quotation in Table 7 above).[26] While this is technically true it is only instrumentally so. As this author wrote in another essay:
”In a representative democracy, issues of public policy are debated and subjected to a vote of the citizenry, after which initiatives are enacted primarily through their elected representatives including the President. This cannot be accomplished without the populous being adequately informed and their wishes being known. Thus it is clear that the public has a responsibility for evaluating the moral licitness of any potential war prior to its being waged and after it has commenced. It is vital that the population remain engaged enough to provide the necessary oversight and re-evaluation as war is waged. What may be justified initially may not remain so due to changes “on the ground.” Therefore, the argument that war-making is a prudential judgment of the responsible authorities only is very misleading and results in wrongly absolving from moral responsibility the population in whose name it is waged.”[27]
Tragically many Catholic rank and file “Neo-con's” have “bought into” the entire secularist neoconservative/Evangelical enterprise not recognizing that much of it including the foreign military policy portion of neo-conservatism is contrary to Catholic teaching. It is based on a Calvinist rendering of scripture grounded as it is in the TULIP doctrine the first principle of which is “Total Moral Depravity” that is, since the “fall from grace” human beings are hopelessly lost despite an initial very good Creation. The Catholic position instead is more balanced and holds that human beings are seriously wounded but not totally depraved and continues to see good in the created realm including some good in every human life since all are created in the Imago Dei whether friend or foe, saint or sinner. Calvinist/neoconservative apologists utilize a largely Old Testament (e.g. pro-capital punishment as found in the Pentateuch) understanding of morality which also stresses the concept of total moral depravity thus tending to view the world in a bi-polar way that is; good vs: bad, saints vs: sinners, right vs: wrong, us vs: them. This ironically is actually quite consistent with the secularist neoconservative (Darwinist) view of “might makes right” and the historical reality of “evil” that remains a pillar of neoconservative philosophy (how ironic that most evangelical's detest Darwin and yet many embrace Darwinian (neoconservative) policies).
The Catholic view makes use of the Socratic/Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis and avoids the post-Enlightenment [a substitute for Christianity] (Mills and Humean) adversarial culture (based as it is in the utilitarian and empirical approach in which no transcendent absolute truths exist). It is worth noting that the U.S. inherited this tradition from Great Britain being that the original Americans and Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Enlightenment and influenced by the British Empiricist movement. Tragically, most Evangelicals and neoconservative Catholics are apparently unaware of this.[28]
The Catholic position again is more nuanced recognizing that each human being is a work in progress and with sanctifying grace can eventually partake of the beatific vision via a process of continued conversion through the power of the Holy Spirit. Due to their Calvinist hermeneutic, Evangelical neoconservatives often conceive of "offensive" military might as evincing the hand of God at work in favoring a “chosen people.” Andrew Bacevich writes that Evangelical's saw this Old Testament pattern played out again in modern Israel’s “preventive” invasion of Lebanon and their pre-emptive/prophylactic bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, in which the Israeli’s employed “offensive action” (not limiting themselves to defensive actions compatible with "Just War” doctrine) in order to prevent or avert a perceived threat.[29] Given Evangelical’s (Calvinist) experience with modern Israel’s “successful” preventive attacks, and their belief that the United States represents the “New Jerusalem” the “shining city upon a hill” with a manifest destiny to rule the world until the rise of the revived Roman Empire and the anti-Christ, this Old Testament hermeneutic was readily assimilable to an aggressive (neoconservative) foreign military policy of imperialism or “might makes right.”
Bacevich effectively argues in the author’s estimation that Evangelical’s assent to both Israeli offensive actions signaled for neoconservatives the acceptance of a total redefinition of classic/historical Just War Doctrinal principles (which previously sanctioned only defensive actions).[30] In way of clarification, neoconservatives and their evangelical partners no longer accept "Just War" principles as classically understood and neither does modern Israel. Both have been granted a sort of “chosen” status (what Bacevich refers to as a special dispensation) which renders a strict application of the JWD gratuitous. They have redefined “defense” to include “preventive attacks” based upon a probability calculus that is heavily dependent on “intelligence” factors which have now been shown to be unreliable. Thus it is apparent that well catechized Catholics should have recognized the “Bush Doctrine” as incompatible with the Catholic faith through the use of reason and by the consistent statements promulgated by the Vatican.
Catholic teaching interprets the Old Testament in light of the New and in light of the reality of the incarnated Christ who advocated conversion of heart (soul) as well as peaceful.[31] evangelism (propose the Gospel not impose it). Christ renounced the Old Testament practice of capital punishment when presented with a concrete example in which the old law called for it.[32] Christ also repudiated adherence to the “letter of the law” without proper attention to its “spirit” and redressed the Pharisees and Sadducee's for failing to “practice what they preached.” In HIS very person Christ embodied the progressive arrow of non-violence and mercy (rather than the simple justice of an “eye for an eye”) which followed the march of history from the earliest Patriarchal period to the time of the Roman Empire during which He lived. The Calvinist (false Augustinian) emphasis on Old Testament morality which is integral to Protestant Evangelicalism and is endorsed by secular neoconservatives is therefore contrary to orthodox Catholicism as it has been handed down for almost 2000 years. It would be well for “Catholic” neoconservatives to reflect on this reality.
It is apparent then that the elites who presently control foreign and domestic policy (represented by the leaders of both political parties) in the United States are wedded to a secular worldview in which economic and military power is the paramount goal. Their neoconservative “movement” represents a new stealth 21st century pagan (post-enlightenment) “Secularism.” It is evident that they have shrewdly enlisted many unsuspecting Protestant Evangelicals, and politically conservative “Catholics” as well as dissatisfied paleo-conservatives and libertarian conservatives and independents in their cause. The “movement” is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Catholicism rightly understood. It behooves faithful Catholics to shine the light of transparency on what is increasingly an immoral enterprise.
NOTES:
[1] Neoconservatism has 6 basic tenets in its original form, 5 according to the second generation of neoconservatives now in power. It bears very little resemblance to classical (Paleo) conservatism which favored conservative social, economic and foreign policy. Neoconservatives favor an aggressive foreign policy which utilizes military power to spread American “democratic” values and only tacitly supports conservative social and cultural policies for politically expedient reasons, such as its embracing of the “values” of Protestant Evangelical's and like-minded neoconservative Catholics. It embraces large budgets particularly in the service of military spending in order to insure the ability to project American power abroad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States) for further details; See also: Irving Kristol, “The Neo-Conservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.” The Weekly Standard, Volume 008, Issue 47, August 8, 2003; Irving Kristol. Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. (New York: The Free Press, 1995) .
[2] Interestingly enough, neoconservative ideas now permeate both Democrat and Republican Parties and are promulgated by adherents of each. Thus irrespective of which Party controls Congress or the Executive Branch, neoconservative ideas prevail.
[3] See my “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” formerly at TCR http://www.tcrnews2.com/genworld.html now at Lulu.com.
[4] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
[5] J.P. Hubert MD FACS “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” at Lulu.com
[6] In contradistinction to paleoconservatives who while economically competitive had a basic historical commitment to the Judeo-Christian ethic, including fixed notions of right and wrong as well as fair-play.
[7] This is obviously incompatible with Catholic social teaching.
[8] This includes a proper balance between solidarity and subsidiarity as well as an equitable distribution of the world’s limited resources.
[9] Occasionally, neoconservatives propose initiatives which are compatible with Catholic teaching both in terms of solidarity and subsidiarity e.g. the Bush administration’s “Faith-Based Initiative.”
[10] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/; for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Life. [11] E.g. Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense now Head of the World Bank, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone. Other Bush administration officials who are sympathetic to neoconservative views include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This list is not exhaustive.
[12] Martin Heidegger, (1889-1976) was a German philosopher, who was one of the developers of existential phenomenology. He was a student of Edmund Husserl, studied Roman Catholic theology and then philosophy at the University of Freiburg, where he became the “founder” of phenomenology. Besides Husserl, Heidegger was especially influenced by the pre-Socratics (rather than Socrates, Plato or Aristotle), by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. For more information see: http://www.connect.net/ron/heid.html.
[13] Norman Podhoretz. Making It (New York, 1967), Breaking Ranks (New York, 1979), Ex-Friends (New York, 1999).
[14] Bacevich, Andrew J, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005), p. 71. [15] Ibid, p. 70.
[16] This view holds that Christ’s return does not occur until after the Jews (Israel) return to the “promised land” (1948 from their perspective). Purportedly, the eschatological clock is started after a peace treaty is made through the intercession of a powerful world leader (the anti-Christ) which insures the safety and security of the Jews. This begins a 7 year period the first half of which is a 3 ½ year period of “minor” tribulation. It is followed by the desecration of the newly rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem (by the anti-Christ who declares himself God on Earth). It requires that the Jews have effective control of Jerusalem in order to re-build the Jewish Temple in which this occurs. This explains why Evangelicals violently oppose any Israeli/Palestinian solution which deprives Israel of the Temple-mount in Jerusalem. The major period of distress the so-called major or Great Tribulation then continues for the last 3 ½ years until the battle of Armageddon and the literal return of Christ to the Earth after which HE initiates a literal/physical thousand year reign. This scenario is completely incompatible with Catholic teaching on eschatology which among other things denies that Christ will reign physically on earth for one thousand years after HIS glorious return.
[17] Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, 2005.
[18] Charles Krauthammer, “The Bush Doctrine,” Weekly Standard, June 4, 2001. [19] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 136.
[20] Ibid, pp. 69-96.
[21] See my “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? Available as a chapter in my above referenced book at Lulu.com, for a discussion of the Just War Doctrine and ethical implications.
[22] CCC # 2265 p.545 “Letitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” [This should not be taken to mean that citizens residing in a nation state are immune or exempt from a reasoned evaluation of the case for war which in itself would be an abdication of their own sacred responsibility to “do good and avoid evil.” In a representative democracy (Republic) the lack of requisite citizen support for war makes it effectively (practically) impossible for the authorities to carry out, JPHJ].
[23] Ibid.
[24] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available in my above referenced book at Lulu.com.
[25] Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005).
[26] See Mark and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected” Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July-August 2003; George Weigel, “The Just War Case for War” America, March 31, 2003; See for some earlier neoconservative writing by George Weigel, “On the Road to Isolationism?” Commentary 93 (January 1992).
[27] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available at Lulu.com as a chapter in my above referenced book.
[28] Note the British and American legal systems are both adversarial rather than Socratic where determining the “truth” is more a function of lawyerly competence then any mutual attempt to reason and arrive at the truth. Facts are what can be admitted into evidence as determined by the judge at the trial court level and become “fixed” as part of the “law of the case.” Courts of Appeals rarely review the original “facts” as they failed to do in the Schiavo case. This methodology is also seen in the debate format Television shows that have featured bi-polar shouting matches in which complex topics are reduced to bi-polar “sound-bites.”
[29] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 133.
[30] Ibid, p.134.
[31] Scripture includes only one example where it appears that Christ became "angry" and could have been perceived as non-peaceful (HIS response to the money-changers in HIS Father’s house).
[32] See John 8: 3-11 for Christ’s rejection of the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. At the time the letter of the Hebrew Law called for “stoning” the woman to death.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Roman Catholic Church Bears Responsibility for Growing Immorality
Yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling which overturned the ban there on gay "marriage" represents the next step of an ever deepening downward spiral in which traditional morality has been all but extinguished in the United States.
Over the course of the last four decades--which interestingly coincides perfectly with the end of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that ended in 1965, the "golden rule" ethic as perennially taught in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis has been effectively replaced by rank utilitarianism where virtually anything in the realm of human behavior can be justified. There no longer exist any moral absolutes (immutable moral norms) only temporary "values" reflected in choices which can be exercised by making use of sheer political/judicial power.
Regrettably it is now accurate to say that there is virtually no limit to what our society could eventually codify into law. In the past decade we have legitimized aggressive (preventive) war (a war crime by international agreement), torture of prisoners (another war crime), arbitrarily altered the time-honored definition of marriage in a way which is totally incompatible with the natural law and human anthropology and rendered increasingly larger segments of our population "expendable" because they are thought to possess lives which are unworthy of living.
In many respects it is the failure of the Catholic Church universal but particularly in the United States which is to blame for the despicable state we now find ourselves in. Had the Traditional faith and morals of the Catholic Church not been so radically altered in the wake of Vatican II, it would no doubt have been much more difficult for the entire moral fabric to have unwoven so readily in the US.
For example, no-fault divorce laws would have been much harder to pass and no doubt far fewer divorces would have been requested. Heterosexual pre and extra-marital sexual relations would likely have been much less frequent as well. Prior to Vatican II, homosexuality was greatly frowned upon among Catholics as being gravely sinful and incompatible with the natural law. It was considered a perverse disorder which was inherently anti-life; to be avoided in the interest of complying with God's will and the common good of society.
Pre-Vatican II, the Catholic Church openly and proudly taught that artificial contraception by a married man and woman was immoral because it separated the generative from the unitive parts of human sexuality--of course, non-married persons were not to be sexually active at all. The generative and unitive functions of marriage according to Catholic teaching were never to be artificially disjoined/separated meaning; that the couple was not to purposely impede the possibility of generating a child in the process of having sexual intercourse. Since there can never be any anatomic, physiologic or behavioral complimentarity between two individuals of the same sex, it is readily apparent that sexual activity of any kind between such persons cannot result naturally in the generation of a child. Therefore, according to Catholic teaching, it is morally wrong and always will be to engage in homosexual relations. While this may seem completely unbelievable to some, it is morally and rationally sound upon deeper reflection. This is in fact what well catechized Roman Catholics were taught and believed prior to Vatican II.
Prior to 1965 it would have been inconceivable for a Roman Catholic to imagine two persons of the same sex "marrying." It would have been recognized immediately as a non-starter. Their sexual incompatibility would have made such a thing preposterous--by definition. The fact that so many so-called "Catholics" now have no problem with same sex "marriage" is a testament to just how radically altered the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church really is.
While the teaching against artificial contraception-- which was affirmed in Humani vitae as recently as 1968 has never been formally rescinded it is completely ignored by the vast majority of Catholics (practising and lapsed). This is the truth and has been well documented by multiple sociological studies. As a result it is very difficult to object to homosexuality. Once the need to keep sexual intercourse (which should involve marriage partners only) open to the generation of life is abandoned, there is no logical basis on which to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Virtually any other combination of persons or even cross-species relations/"marriages" then become tenable and are simply a matter of taste!
The fact that over 50% of Roman Catholic priests among those less than 60 years of age in the US are reported to be homosexual is of great interest given the views of many "Catholics" on sexuality and same-sex "marriage" and the greater public at-large. If and until this horrendous problem is resolved in the Catholic priesthood, it is unlikely that the constant movement toward more and more bizarre sexual practices and living arrangements in this country will be halted or reversed. Since Traditional Roman Catholicism is essentially dead in the United States, that eventuality appears highly improbable.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Over the course of the last four decades--which interestingly coincides perfectly with the end of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that ended in 1965, the "golden rule" ethic as perennially taught in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis has been effectively replaced by rank utilitarianism where virtually anything in the realm of human behavior can be justified. There no longer exist any moral absolutes (immutable moral norms) only temporary "values" reflected in choices which can be exercised by making use of sheer political/judicial power.
Regrettably it is now accurate to say that there is virtually no limit to what our society could eventually codify into law. In the past decade we have legitimized aggressive (preventive) war (a war crime by international agreement), torture of prisoners (another war crime), arbitrarily altered the time-honored definition of marriage in a way which is totally incompatible with the natural law and human anthropology and rendered increasingly larger segments of our population "expendable" because they are thought to possess lives which are unworthy of living.
In many respects it is the failure of the Catholic Church universal but particularly in the United States which is to blame for the despicable state we now find ourselves in. Had the Traditional faith and morals of the Catholic Church not been so radically altered in the wake of Vatican II, it would no doubt have been much more difficult for the entire moral fabric to have unwoven so readily in the US.
For example, no-fault divorce laws would have been much harder to pass and no doubt far fewer divorces would have been requested. Heterosexual pre and extra-marital sexual relations would likely have been much less frequent as well. Prior to Vatican II, homosexuality was greatly frowned upon among Catholics as being gravely sinful and incompatible with the natural law. It was considered a perverse disorder which was inherently anti-life; to be avoided in the interest of complying with God's will and the common good of society.
Pre-Vatican II, the Catholic Church openly and proudly taught that artificial contraception by a married man and woman was immoral because it separated the generative from the unitive parts of human sexuality--of course, non-married persons were not to be sexually active at all. The generative and unitive functions of marriage according to Catholic teaching were never to be artificially disjoined/separated meaning; that the couple was not to purposely impede the possibility of generating a child in the process of having sexual intercourse. Since there can never be any anatomic, physiologic or behavioral complimentarity between two individuals of the same sex, it is readily apparent that sexual activity of any kind between such persons cannot result naturally in the generation of a child. Therefore, according to Catholic teaching, it is morally wrong and always will be to engage in homosexual relations. While this may seem completely unbelievable to some, it is morally and rationally sound upon deeper reflection. This is in fact what well catechized Roman Catholics were taught and believed prior to Vatican II.
Prior to 1965 it would have been inconceivable for a Roman Catholic to imagine two persons of the same sex "marrying." It would have been recognized immediately as a non-starter. Their sexual incompatibility would have made such a thing preposterous--by definition. The fact that so many so-called "Catholics" now have no problem with same sex "marriage" is a testament to just how radically altered the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church really is.
While the teaching against artificial contraception-- which was affirmed in Humani vitae as recently as 1968 has never been formally rescinded it is completely ignored by the vast majority of Catholics (practising and lapsed). This is the truth and has been well documented by multiple sociological studies. As a result it is very difficult to object to homosexuality. Once the need to keep sexual intercourse (which should involve marriage partners only) open to the generation of life is abandoned, there is no logical basis on which to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Virtually any other combination of persons or even cross-species relations/"marriages" then become tenable and are simply a matter of taste!
The fact that over 50% of Roman Catholic priests among those less than 60 years of age in the US are reported to be homosexual is of great interest given the views of many "Catholics" on sexuality and same-sex "marriage" and the greater public at-large. If and until this horrendous problem is resolved in the Catholic priesthood, it is unlikely that the constant movement toward more and more bizarre sexual practices and living arrangements in this country will be halted or reversed. Since Traditional Roman Catholicism is essentially dead in the United States, that eventuality appears highly improbable.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Rank Utilitarianism now Reigning US (Immoral) Philosophy
This blog is dedicated to applying the principles of scholastic moral philosophy as articulated in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis to the consideration of current events. Unfortunately, in much of the developed West, rank Utilitarianism (read perverted self-interest) has become the reigning/controlling philosophy where moral considerations are concerned. Were the "3" elements of every moral act [object, intent, circumstances] to be properly considered and expeditiously applied most of the world's pressing problems would either not have arisen or could be easily solved. Instead, individuals and nation states have embraced a disastrous post-Enlightenment philosophy which denies the existence of moral absolutes (exceptionless moral norms) in order to pursue their selfish aims.
The looming war with Iran is beyond all reasonable doubt immoral from the perspective of traditional moral norms as found in the "golden rule" ethic which for almost 2000 years has been embraced in the West. Over the past several decades however, Utilitarianism has all but extinguished it--resulting in a plethora of immoral public policies and personal practices. It is past time for persons of good will to recommit themselves to the golden rule ethic and to scholastic moral reasoning before life as we know it is irrevocably changed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
The looming war with Iran is beyond all reasonable doubt immoral from the perspective of traditional moral norms as found in the "golden rule" ethic which for almost 2000 years has been embraced in the West. Over the past several decades however, Utilitarianism has all but extinguished it--resulting in a plethora of immoral public policies and personal practices. It is past time for persons of good will to recommit themselves to the golden rule ethic and to scholastic moral reasoning before life as we know it is irrevocably changed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Friday, September 7, 2007
Is the "Golden Rule" still applicable?
For several decades it has been difficult if not impossible for one who wishes to practice Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy (standard Judeo-Christian [golden rule] ethics) in action to aspire to anything other than slave labor/wages (how does one properly utilize one’s gifts under such a circumstance?). The so-called professions have been corrupted through and through. They destroy anyone who brings traditional moral principles to the work-place.
For example, Medicine in the United States has only one goal—to make as much money as possible, Law the same. Any specialist/sub-specialist physician (dependent on referrals) who tries to practice ethically is “cut-off” from cases and run out of town for lack of work. The system will not tolerate a person who fails to “play the game.” Evil thus reinforces itself. Those who pervert the system are rewarded. How does one follow (Catholic) social justice principles in such a situation? There is virtually no one with whom to band in an attempt to change the system.
Justice in America is not blind, it is perverted. Those with the most money obtain the best lawyers and those without it the worst. “Justice” is for sale to the highest bidder. Celebrities and the super-rich have one legal system the masses another. Multinational corporate interests eclipse those of the poor and middle classes. This is simply fact which is undeniable. The current system is corrupt from top to bottom as rank utilitarianism has become the reigning immoral philosophy of the day.
Only a wholesale revamping of public morality will do; meaning the total repudiation of utilitarianism and the moral relativism it has spawned and a return to the golden rule ethic so perfectly articulated in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis. This means a return to and respect for the tenets of the Natural (moral) Law.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
For example, Medicine in the United States has only one goal—to make as much money as possible, Law the same. Any specialist/sub-specialist physician (dependent on referrals) who tries to practice ethically is “cut-off” from cases and run out of town for lack of work. The system will not tolerate a person who fails to “play the game.” Evil thus reinforces itself. Those who pervert the system are rewarded. How does one follow (Catholic) social justice principles in such a situation? There is virtually no one with whom to band in an attempt to change the system.
Justice in America is not blind, it is perverted. Those with the most money obtain the best lawyers and those without it the worst. “Justice” is for sale to the highest bidder. Celebrities and the super-rich have one legal system the masses another. Multinational corporate interests eclipse those of the poor and middle classes. This is simply fact which is undeniable. The current system is corrupt from top to bottom as rank utilitarianism has become the reigning immoral philosophy of the day.
Only a wholesale revamping of public morality will do; meaning the total repudiation of utilitarianism and the moral relativism it has spawned and a return to the golden rule ethic so perfectly articulated in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis. This means a return to and respect for the tenets of the Natural (moral) Law.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)