Sounds like " morning quarter-backing". If Sean Taylor had killed the intruder in his bedroom with the would you really be questioning the morality of this behavior?
I think you cannot rely on virtue ethics alone, anymore than you can rely on consequentialist ethics, or deontological ethics alone, that is what makes this whole area "non-scientific".
On Thu Dec 27 13:53 , "David Opderbeck"
Jack, thanks for the correction. I was responding to the paraphrase Janice had provided. I agree that Moreland's statement is more nuanced. Nevertheless, his categorical statement that "A father would honor God and do what is right if he killed the intruder to protect his children" still seems overstated to me. It may be that under some circumstances this is the proper course of action, but if there are other reasonable ways to try to protect the children without killing the intruder, then I don't think the violence against the intruder is always necessarily morally justified.
On Dec 27, 2007 1:44 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
David, you of all people on this list should know better than to criticize anothers point through hearsay.
That is not what J P Moreland said. He was just making the point that if you killed an intruder, with the intention of protecting your family, with no malice involved, it would be justified. He was not saying it was morally the best outcome.
"Second, sometimes the best means of expressing love is an intervention that stops others from causing harm. Such intervention does not require hatred toward those we thwart. We hold the mistaken notion that we have to hate or be angry with someone to exact justice and punishment on them. But nothing could be further from the truth in God's case, and even in our own. Suppose an armed intruder breaks into a home and threatens to kill the five young children who live there. A father would honor God and do what is right if he killed the intruder to protect his children. The father's act does not require him to hate the intruder. Indeed, he may well act with no formed attitude about the victim at all. In fact, if he later learned of the intruder's sad childhood, he could rightly still believe he had done the right thing while having compassion on the deceased intruder."
Quoted from : Second, sometimes the best means of expressing love is an intervention that stops others from causing harm. Such intervention does not require hatred toward those we thwart. We hold the mistaken notion that we have to hate or be angry with someone to exact justice and punishment on them. But nothing could be further from the truth in God's case, and even in our own. Suppose an armed intruder breaks into a home and threatens to kill the five young children who live there. A father would honor God and do what is right if he killed the intruder to protect his children. The father's act does not require him to hate the intruder. Indeed, he may well act with no formed attitude about the victim at all. In fact, if he later learned of the intruder's sad childhood, he could rightly still believe he had done the right thing while having compassion on the deceased intruder.
Quoted from: http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000630.cfm
Interestingly enough Janice was paraphrasing not JP Moreland but Ron Rhodes who misquoted Moreland: "Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."
He gives no reference. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html
On Thu Dec 27 13:26 , "David Opderbeck" sent:
Janice said: Plus, if one doesn't like the conditions in the State in which he lives, he may CHOOSE to move to a State that better reflects his likes and dislikes. If the Fed unconstitutionally enforces a one-size-fits-all solution on each State, my choice is taken away - there is no other State that I can move to to get away from it.Kind of like the way slave owners preferred the southern states before the civil war?A "market" in state governments doesn't work on several levels. First, it allows wealthy interests to capture the local legislative process, often to the the detriment of ordinary people -- which in fact happens frequently now as states offer tax and pollution breaks to lure large businesses from other states. "We the people" gets swallowed by business lobbies. Second, the average person often does not have the means to move freely to another state -- the labor and real estate markets differ vastly in different areas of the country. It simply isn't true that a farmer from Iowa could easily move to New York City, or vice versa. And of course, many people will choose to suffer severe financial hardship before moving away from their families. Finally, except with respect to local tax breaks for target industries, state legislative and regulatory regimes tend to operate in concert, regionally if not nationally. The National Association of Attorneys General ( http://www.naag.org), for example, functions as a sort of non-elected federal system for state Attorneys General
Janice said: "Not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. For instance, any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most effective means available to him fails them morally." ~ J. P. Moreland paraphrase from memory.
If this is an argument in favor of a right, or I guess responsibility, for individuals to bear arms, it is fallacious on several levels. First, it seems to assume a consequentialst ethic, which I don't think is ultimately acceptable from a Christian perspective. The ethic of Jesus ultimately is one of virtue, not one of weighing benefits and harms.Moreover, even from a consequentialist perspective, it is by no means clear that a person is morally obligated to use "the most effective means available" to protect his family against a violent intruder. In fact, using "the most effective means available" might be immoral if a potentially "less effective" means is available that will not result in further violence. Say, for example, that I can lock the family into a bedroom, call 911, and try to escape out the bedroom window, with a 90% chance that the intruder will be apprehended without harming the wife and children. Say further that I can shoot and kill the intruder with a 95% chance that the intruder won't be able to harm the wife and children first. Is it really morally preferable to opt for a situation in which there is a 100% chance that someone (the intruder) will die and only a 5% chance that the family will be harmed, instead of a situation in which there is a 90% chance that the intruder will be apprehended without injury to anyone? I don't think so.Personally, I think Moreland sometimes is too rationalistic.
On Dec 27, 2007 12:51 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
At 10:52 AM 12/27/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
Janice said: I am not advocating FORCED "emissions trading". If people living within various States want to voluntarily engage in it with their neighboring States, they can also figure out how to best manage their own transaction costs, themselves.
Ok, so you accept emissions trading. I'm not clear what you mean by "forced" emissions trading, however.
@@@ I'm talking about unconstitutional , federal government involvement in States business.@@@ "We the People" are "the government" on all levels. We get to decide who we want to have standing in representing the authority that is vested in us. Our government is OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. The smaller the government, the closer to the people it will be. Large bureaucracies are anathema to good government and/or efficient business operations. Small government and small business can turn on a dime, getting rid of policies that don't work and immediately implementing policies that do -- that is unless the central planners force themselves into the picture.
It isn't possible to have an emissions trading regime without a governmental authority setting emissions caps and establishing the ground rules for trading credits. Without caps, there are no credits, and without credits, there is no market.
@@@ Those kinds of problems are solvable. Plus, if one doesn't like the conditions in the State in which he lives, he may CHOOSE to move to a State that better reflects his likes and dislikes. If the Fed unconstitutionally enforces a one-size-fits-all solution on each State, my choice is taken away - there is no other State that I can move to to get away from it.If your point is simply that state governments rather than the federal government should establish regional markets, that might work, but that also presents major spillovers and political economy problems when emissions end up in states that are excluded from the trading bloc.
@@@ James Madison was a federalist, and is known as the Father of the Constitution. The "enumerated powers" that the Framers gave the necessarily "strong" federal government (which they wisely divided up into different branches) is quite short, specifically because they wanted to impede the efforts of those who are always waiting in the wings looking for an opportunity to control the lives of others. I think one of the things the anti-federalists didn't want us to have is a standing army because they rightly feared (from past history) that - given the right conditions - it could wind up being a threat to individual freedoms. An armed population deters that threat.
So, you end up with a few states enforcing their "state's rights" against other states that are powerless to enforce theirs. Seems to me this kind of thing is exactly why the beloved founders accepted the arguments of the federalists.
"In Germany during the first part of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle, and he wrote in Mein Kampf as follows: " National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
@@@ No comment.
Janice said: If you don't believe you have the Scriptural backing to defend yourself by all means necessary that's your right. I believe otherwise. Jesus didn't have to reveal (preach) self-evident truths.
So some "self-evident truths" of natural revelation trump Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? I guess I'd agree that is a conclusion many of the American deist founders would have found salutary. Just ask Thomas Jefferson, who literally took a scissors to his Bible to cut out the miraculous bits in the Gospels.
In another email to the ASA list, you suggested that one place the ASA could have a beneficial influence is by sponsoring or co-sponsoring a conference on " responsible apologetics".
Would Christian apologists like J. P Moreland be invited to participate?:~ Janice
"Not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. For instance, any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most effective means available to him fails them morally." ~ J. P. Moreland paraphrase from memory.
On Dec 27, 2007 10:32 AM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>
> My cable went down last night, so this is the first chance I've had to get back on line since then. Sorry for the delay in responding. (See response below)
>
>
> At 04:57 PM 12/26/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Janice said: Private property rights along with the right to the self-defense of them is adhered to by those (including the Framers) who embrace the biblical worldview
>
> Indeed, Jesus preached alot about self defense and the right to bear arms. Wasn't that in the Sermon on the Mount? Or was it that thing about Peter cutting the guy's ear off? ~ David O.
> @@ If you don't believe you have the Scriptural backing to defend yourself by all means necessary that's your right. I believe otherwise. Jesus didn't have to reveal (preach) self-evident truths.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident" If self-evident then they are provable in nature and they are. "The Right of Self-defense is the first law of nature" and this can be shown in that predators like tigers have claws and eagles have talons which are used both to obtain food and for self-defense. They are a means to sustain life and to defend it.
>
> "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." ~ Frederic Bastiat http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
>
> The U.N. denies the self-evident proof in nature and is saying that their view of how the World should be is correct and therefore nature is wrong.
> UN report proclaims self-defense is not a right - http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/08/un_report_procl.php
>
> "Not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. For instance, any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most effective means available to him fails them morally." ~ J. P. Moreland paraphrase from memory.
>
> James Burgh wrote in 'Political Disquisitions' "The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." Prominent revolutionaries who subscribed to Burgh's writings included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and John Hancock.
>
> I invite people to voluntarily hang this sign in their front window: "This is a gun-free home". Unless they're willing to do that, don't think I'm going to look kindly on anyone who wants to use the arm of the government to, in effect, force me to hang that sign in my window.
>
>
>
> Janice quoted: "Free market environmentalism is what the economists at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) have been studying and promoting for over 15 years"
>
> Not surprisingly, at least some of the stuff on this site supports emissions trading (see http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=406 ) -- the true Coasian alternative to Pigovian taxes or direct regulation with respect to environmental problems. So again -- by advocating "property rights" are you advocating emissions trading? If not, how to you manage the transaction cost problem? ~ David O.
> @ I am not advocating FORCED "emissions trading". If people living within various States want to voluntarily engage in it with their neighboring States, they can also figure out how to best manage their own transaction costs, themselves.
>
> As you well know, the federal government (EPA) has already unconstitutionally (and quite unnecessarily - as the empirical evidence plainly shows) stuck its "one-size-fits-all" nose in the various State's business. Until that tool of the central planners is effectively dismantled, the SPECIFIC "emissions trading" idea being proposed at PERC is the closest thing to a free-market solution available at this juncture. It merely amounts to making the best of a bad situation.
>
> This is the sort of "bad situation" that always arises when the __central ("GEEZE! It worked on paper!") planners__ get the chance to put their utopian ideas to work in the "real" world inhabited by "real" people:
>
> "..To convert a barn into a house in Britain today you must survey it for bats before you apply for permission to convert. The bat survey must be done by an "accredited" bat group and only in the summer months. Guess what? Bat groups are very busy in the summer and charge very high fees. If the survey says there are rare bats in the building you may be refused permission to convert; as it turns out, the bats, not you, own the building. So what happens? People respond to incentives. Most barn owners resent and detest bats. I'm told playing Wagner at full volume clears a building of bats in short order. A simple scheme of small tax rebates for owners of barns who add bat-roosting boxes to their houses would achieve good will as well as bat babies. But it would not make paid work for bat groups.
>
> PERC inspired me to see the world differently. The vision of free market environmentalism is inspiring because it is optimistic, and the solutions it suggests are voluntary, diverse and (for the taxpayer) cheap. The only things standing in its way are vested interests of politicians, bureaucrats, and pressure groups. ..." http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434
>
> Many more examples of the idioticrats in action are found here: http://www.ecoworld.com/index.cfm
>
> Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution By Indur M. Goklany
> http://books.google.com/books?id=doZAq3OcFSIC&dq=clearing+the+air+the+real+story+of+the+war+on+air+pollution+washington+dc+cato+institute
>
> * More:
>
> Frederick Bastiat "The Law" http://jim.com/bastiat.htm "..Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter by peaceful or revolutionary means into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ....
>
> "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose that it may violate property instead of protecting it then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. ....
>
> "And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law which necessarily requires the use of force rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution so long searched for in the area of social relationships is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
>
> Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law that is, by force this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
>
> The Seductive Lure of Socialism
>
> Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
>
> This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
>
> Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
>
> Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
>
> In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
>
> Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
>
> At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.
>
> Plunder Violates Ownership
>
> I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.
>
> I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.
>
> It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time especially now wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.
>
> Three Systems of Plunder [ snip] ~ Frederick Bastiat "The Law" http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
>
> ~ Janice
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 4:39 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote: At 03:43 PM 12/26/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
> Janice said: The key to sound environment management is property rights. Unless, as Coase pointed out, there are high transaction costs (as when there are many individual property owners whose rights need to be cleared -- e.g., where there are numerous individual residences near a factory) or impediments to bargaining (as in the international context where politics interfere), right? And this would include strong enforcement mechanisms, including easy access to the courts for individuals whose rights are violated, correct? Or are you advocating tradeable emissions credits, which are the sine qua non of Coasian environmental economics? @@ "..... Vaclav Klaus , President of the Czech Republic, and someone who suffered under communist tyranny, has put it thus: "When I study and analyse environmental indicators concerning my own country and when I compare them with the situation in the communist era, there is an incredible improvement. The improvement is not because of 'collective action' you advocate (it existed in the communist era), but because of freedom and of free markets." It's not easy to articulate the principles of free market environmentalism. When the air and water is fouled by pollution, the natural emotional reaction is to blame the polluters and demand regulations. By extension, the polluters are assumed to be motivated by profit, which in-turn is demonized. But it's not so simple. Profit creates wealth, and wealth funds environmental restoration. Central planning - communism - destroys wealth, destroys incentives, and the practical result is abominable pollution, worse than anything we've ever seen in the capitalist west, and harder to correct. Free market environmentalism is what the economists at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) have been studying and promoting for over 15 years. When we began publishing EcoWorld in 1993, we quickly came across the work PERC was doing and we've been following them and learning from them ever since. Their message is more important now than ever, as the emotional juggernaut called global warming threatens to drown out reason and demands immediate and extraordinary measures. Incentives are not easy to formulate, and require governments to referee. But regulations and takings are even more problematic - in the extreme they lead to environmental devastation exemplified by the failed communist economies of Eastern Europe. The question is one of emphasis, and free market environmentalism recognizes that private property, ownership, stewardship, incentives, and the profit motive properly channelled is superior to central planning. This recent report by noted author Matt Ridley attests to his conversion to free market environmentalism, something that even - indeed especially - today's global warming alarmism should not consign to the list of endangered ideologies. - Ed "Redwood" Ring
>
> Much more: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434 ~ Janice ... (Private property rights along with the right to the self-defense of them is adhered to by those (including the Framers) who embrace the biblical worldview. It is the unchanging backbone of the Constitution. Our government is set up by "we the people" and public servants are sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution on our behalf.) ~ Janice ... (Private property rights along with the right to the self-defense of them is adhered to by those (including the Framers) who embrace the biblical worldview. It is the unchanging backbone of the Constitution. Our government is set up by "we the people" and public servants are sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution on our behalf.)
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 2:41 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote: At 12:49 PM 12/26/2007, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>
> Should we club together and get Janice a subscription? ~ Michael@ Why would I want a subscription to a cult magazine wherein I can tell you _exactly_ what will be in the various issues even before they're published? I can also tell you _exactly_ what inconvenient truths the well-known Marxist _globalist_ collectivists at EEN won't be publishing in any of the issues. Here's a sample: Hosea 4:1-3: "Hear the word of the LORD...because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "the land mourns because there is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery ...." Isa. 65: 17-23: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. ... They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. [No one will steal what they produce from them and give it to someone else in exchange for their vote]. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. .... my chosen individuals will long enjoy the works of their hands. Individuals will not toil in vain [for a 'collective'] .." says the LORD. Rev. 20: 12-13: "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God... And they were judged, EACH INDIVIDUAL, according to HIS [individual] works..." Rev. 21:1-8: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. .. . . He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am making everything new!' .. the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murders, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the second death [complete/total separation from what they hated ( ie: all that is good) for eternity]." ~ Janice ... who knows that one of the "good things" they hate is private individual property rights. The key to sound environment management is property rights. Hosea 4:1-3: "Hear the word of the LORD...because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "the land mourns because there is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery ...." Isa. 65: 17-23: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. ... They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. [No one will steal what they produce from them and give it to someone else in exchange for their vote]. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. .... my chosen individuals will long enjoy the works of their hands. Individuals will not toil in vain [for a 'collective'] .." says the LORD. Rev. 20: 12-13: "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God... And they were judged, EACH INDIVIDUAL, according to HIS [individual] works..." Rev. 21:1-8: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. .. . . He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am making everything new!' .. the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murders, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the second death [complete/total separation from what they hated ( ie: all that is good) for eternity]." ~ Janice ... who knows that one of the "good things" they hate is private individual property rights. The key to sound environment management is property rights. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944220/posts?page=9#9
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Martin To: David Opderbeck Cc: asA Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine Hi David, Thanks. That looks interesting. I also noticed that we (the ASA) are a partner organization. See: http://www.creationcare.org/partners.php. Not sure what exactly the partnership entails. thanks, On 12/26/07, David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com > wrote: Of possible interest to list members: I got a subscription to Creation Care magazine for Christmas ( http://www.creationcare.org/magazine/ ). Seems like a great publication -- Steve Martin (CSCA) http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 27 2007 - 15:29:16 EST