In many current discussions–this colloquy with my friend Jeff, for instance–it becomes important to ascertain the intention of an action, not just the fact of a behavior.  In other contexts, “behavior modification” is often a useful goal; in matters of justice, however, we must determine who is liable to punishment for an action, and who is liable for the consequences of an action.

When we do that, may I humbly suggest that we take as our operational definition of “intention” the “victory condition” or “success condition” of the action?  That is both cognitively realist and consistent with the formative tradition of our best understandings of justice.

When we speak of the “end” that we “aim at” or “tend toward” in an action, we often accidentally shift the ground of argument. Continue reading →

Once again, the left is saying to the Chief Justice, “nice little Supreme Court you got here. Too bad if anything was to happen to it.” Only 5-4 decisions for the outcomes the  left like — like NFIB v. Sebelius – are “legitimate.” 5-4 decisions the other way imperil “the court itself.” By making this a personal appeal to Chief Justice Roberts, either to side with them or pay a political price, they once again risk tainting a ruling in their favor as being based on the very political considerations they themselves urge upon the Chief Justice. And the outcome of the last case has only encouraged them to run this play as long as it appears to work.

(source: Lobbying the Chief Justice (again) – The Washington Post)

Once the nihilists start winning, we all start losing.  You have to know how to refuse the Vandals outside the gates, or you’re stuck with ’em (just ask Leo about Genseric).  Even Danegeld is better than inviting Hengist and Horsa over for dinner.

In case all this Papist chatter is stressing anyone out, here’s a cute animated bunny with a mitre. And here’s a real one with other headgear:

mmmm, pancakes.

It is tempting to reply to the Georgetown nonsense by making a more or less univocal connection between the public humiliation and penitential obeisance of the enemies of the people and the carefully-scripted confessions of the victims of Stalin’s show trials. And the very title ‘Free Speech and Expression Committee’ is so rhetorically close to the ‘Committee of Public Safety’ that some reference to the likeness is irresistible. But to keep our own moral compass we need to make such comparisons with a certain irony. After all, I assume that nobody at Georgetown is going to be shot in an underground cell or enjoy the favor of Mme. Guillotine. That the hard left lacks irony is perhaps one of its most egregious—and most dangerous—traits. The social and political cost of this simplistic linguistic world is likely to be very high indeed. If our moral vocabulary allows for no distinction in degrees of moral outrage, then a tasteless cartoon becomes as bad as genocide—or, to make the problem more obvious, genocide becomes no worse than a tasteless cartoon. In such a world, intelligent moral discourse and discussion are practically dead. It is a shame that it is the privileged moralizers in the universities who appear to be in the vanguard of killing it.

(source: Georgetown and the Death of Moral Discourse | Carl R. Trueman | First Things)

I had planned to write a long post reflecting on this, but Dan’s and Greg’s recent think pieces, and the discussion spiralling around them, seem to tell me that events have overtaken that long-ago intention.  But do read the article.

Robert Royal notes that a need to deal with actual violent threats means considering the relationship between moral and spiritual aims and secular force:

We need action on multiple fronts: diplomatic, ideological, social. But the clearest signal the West could send at the moment would be to put a contingent of special forces on the ground (preferably with, but if necessary without, Arab allies), drive ISIS out of Mosul, and keep it out. A military reversal of that magnitude would eliminate a fair bit of ISIS’s current glamour and open up a space for the longer-term soft approaches.

(source: Defending “Rome” – The Catholic Thing)

…and, of course, that’s not something that the Vatican seems to be very good at, these days.  But I can’t help myself; this makes me think of a favorite bit of half-serious whimsy Continue reading →