Torture and incommensurable traditions

With more and more coming out about the use of torture by the U.S. government and armed forces, the morality of this issue is making the rounds once again. The usual sides are positioning. There isn't much to add in the argument itself beyond what a number of bloggers, including Tom at Disputations, Mark Shea, Daniel Larison, Zippy, and others have pointed out. To me, this issue more than any other seems to clarify which moral tradition one belongs to. Now, apparently, Deal Hudson is entertaining joining those who put RNC loyalty before natural law and the teaching of the Church.

What occurred to me in reading Larison's recent thoughts on the matter was that the legitimization of torture under the Jack Ryan ethic is the dark side of the liberal tradition. I'm talking about MacIntyre and Three Rival Versions here. It's the desire for a rational ethics in the Kantian sense, a universally understood philosophy, advocating one universal rule of justice and right that preempts all disagreement. Peace and the cessation of all conflict--which was of course judged to be religious in origin--was the goal that the proponents of this tradition in its glory days expected. But when faced with the hard facts of reality, the only conclusion that can remain within that tradition is consequentialism--and that's pretty much what it has become (the only Kantians left are in movies and comic books). There's much that could be unpacked there, but that's not my point in calling this to attention.

My point is that the conservative defense of torture, which a surprising number (if not, majority?) of American Christians share, follows from the principles of the liberal (in the sense of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant) tradition of modernity. (Notably, as does free-market capitalism, which conservatives defend as fiercely as they do torture; which makes sense, as they presuppose the same view of the person and society). The Aristotelian-catholic tradition works from a wholly different set of principles. In other words: according to Alasdair MacIntyre, a debate or an attempt to argue for the truth of torture between these traditions is impossible, as the traditions are incommensurable. As Larison put it, they work within two wholly different (despite superficial appearances of similarity due to language) moral universes. All that can be done is for the Aristotelian-catholic tradition to try to point out the incoherence of the the rival tradition's set of principles. To me, it seems this is the task at hand.

Have you been reading Disputations?

Well, you should. It's always been a fantastic blog; and now Tom has been continuing a series of posts on moral object, intention, and circumstances, which is very important and in need of serious reminding. Suffice it to say: much of the debates on torture, stem-cell research, war, and abortion need the clarification he is providing.

(Although I think most conservatives really don't care about determining the truth of moral rectitude, as they are surreptitiously sentimentalists and aesthetes when it comes to morality. Not that you could ever say that, or rather, be heard if you did...)

And it goes to show: St. Thomas Aquinas! Antedating modern moral arguments by 700 years, but still more clear and helpful than all the rest, despite his misleading antiquity!

calling things as they are

The Superior General of the C.S.C., Fr. Hugh Cleary, penned a letter addressed to President Obama, concerning his invitation to Notre Dame, etc. Much has been said on this. To me, the issue was never really that obfuscatory. Catholic universities have long invited dubious political figures to give addresses and receive honorary degrees. The bishops protested this. But no one listens much to the bishops, particularly universities. Catholic universities continue to invite such persons, and continue to ignore bishops.

In short, we should have stopped expecting Catholic universities to be organs of the Church long ago. Under their present constitutions and governing structures, they really just aren't. When University officials argue that it is important that a university present an "open forum" where "all points can be presented" they demonstrate an implicit preference for a modern notion of inquiry and education. It reminds me of J.P. Meier's introduction to A Marginal Jew where he argues that the best way to uncover the real Jesus is to put a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jewish, and an agnostic scholar in the basement of Harvard Library--only whatever they can agree can be retained as truly "objective" conclusions on the subject. I'm guessing the people behind the decision to invite President Obama to Notre Dame would find little wrong with that methodology.

But what I wanted to comment on instead was a bit from Fr. Cleary's essay/letter:

President Obama, you are superbly versed in the issues of our day. I have no doubt that your policy convictions are grounded in rigorous study and that all your important decisions are supported by your conscience. I am confident that you are likewise well versed in the Catholic faith conviction that human life begins at conception. Therefore, through this open letter, I would like to take advantage of your appearance at Notre Dame to ask you to rethink, through prayerful wrestling with your own conscience, your stated positions on the vital “life issues” of our day, particularly in regard to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and your position on the Freedom of Choice Act before Congress.

Abortion and other similar issues are indeed often obfuscated under the mirage of faith. Nancy Pelosi and Joseph Biden, those astute Catholics, made similar confusion last year when they spoke about abortion. On the contrary:

The evil of abortion is not a matter of faith.

Sadly, the language used by the Superior General above echoes the same confusion. Abortion is actually a rather simple matter. Prayer certainly is not necessary to ascertain its wrongness. Nor is this a matter for "wrestling" with one's conscience (whatever actual act that metaphor is meant to describe). It is a simple matter of knowledge of biology, surgical procedure, and a little philosophy. All you have to know is three things:

1. All animal life begins when the sperm and ovum fuse to create a new cell with a new DNA complex, beginning a new organism. The same goes for human beings. Nothing more needs to be added to this new organism for it to grow into its mature state. Furthermore, there is no biological (that is to say, genetic or taxonomic) difference between a two month old fetus and a one month old baby. For mammals, neither the fetus nor the baby, by the way, can survive without its mother. Every freshman biology student knows this.

2. Abortion is a surgical procedure which involves removing that still living and growing new organism from the protective enclosure of the uterus in order to terminate its life. Everyone knows this.

3. The embryonic organism is an individual of the human species. At least in the United States, we distinguish between human animals and all other animals, by means of rights, privileges, responsibilities, laws, and a host of other obvious markers, all following from the basic apprehension that the difference between the two is one of kind and not merely degree, and seemingly, and an almost infinite difference. This difference has something to do with having minds and free will, which. it is almost universally agreed upon, animals do not. In other words, the human organism has a dignity that is incommensurate with any other organism; furthermore, one of the consequences of that dignity is that it is wrong to unjustly terminate the life of the human organism. Nearly everyone knows this.

Faith has nothing to do with these apprehensions. They are all easily evident. They are conclusions of reason, of science and ethics. So, when Fr. Cleary says to the President, "I have no doubt that your policy convictions are grounded in rigorous study and that all your important decisions are supported by your conscience," I am not sure what he means, unless he means to contradict the obvious. The President either has not studied much, or is maliciously ignoring the truth. For a President, either alternative is a violation of conscience.

And when Fr. Cleary mentions "the Catholic faith conviction that human life begins at conception" I am not sure what article of faith he is talking about. For there is no such article of faith. We don't believe that life begins at conception. We know it! We believe that Christ rose from the dead. That is a conviction of faith. We know (as all freshman biology students do) that animal life begins at conception. And that the fertilized ovum is not a different species, but is a primitive individual of the species homo sapiens. No faith there. That is a conclusion of science. And one should not kill innocent human life is also a conclusion of reason, one of ethics. And it is a conclusion that we still hold in the United States. Therefore, President Obama either is as dumb as a doorknob, or is maliciously ignoring plain truths of biology and ethics.* And it seems to me, Notre Dame should not go about inviting individuals of either case to give addresses and receive honorary degrees.

*There is actually a third alternative, less rhetorically powerful: he has been blinded by his own complicity in the quest for power and influence which can plague politicians, and has actually psychologically convinced himself of something he should otherwise reject. Cognitive dissonance, etc. In other words, the appetites can at times blind the intellect and impede the will.