Recently in Moral Philosophy Category

Earlier this week the Supreme Court debated whether the rape of children should be punishable by execution. In deciding the case of Patrick Kennedy, a Louisiana man who raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter, the Court could determine whether the death penalty is extended to crimes other than murder. The case is also likely to reopen debates on the question of the moral legitimacy of state-imposed death. Are there any legitimate reasons for supporting the death penalty? Should child rape be a cause for execution?

Personally, I believe that the Bible not only should be our primary guide on such questions but that it also provides sufficient answers. I also believe that we should not rely on the three primary justifications given for the death penalty -- deterrence, protection of society, and retribution -- but should instead advocate for the Biblical model of justice.

As a Christian I believe that many human institutions, including civil government, are divinely ordained and delegated a certain degree of authority and responsibility. While ultimately under God's control, civil government is given a degree of sovereignty over certain spheres of human existence. One of the most important areas which government is ordained is in dispensing justice.

While no government is able to carry out this task perfectly, the more it conforms its view of justice with God's moral law the more legitimate its authority and the more just the state will be. We are able to know the moral law because it is revealed to us either through special revelation (e.g., the Bible) or through natural revelation (e.g., the natural law). For the purpose of justifying capital punishment we will turn to special revelation.

Christians often look back to the Mosaic Law when searching for justifications for capital punishment. This is hardly surprising considering that in the law God gave the Israelites, twenty-one different offenses were considered worthy of the death penalty.

The problem with this approach is that the Law of Moses only applied to Israel. Since this particular covenant was made between God and the Hebrew people, it was never universally applicable. While we might be able to discern moral truths by looking to the Law our decisions on how to apply it would be arbitrary. How would we rationalize, for example, applying the death penalty to cases of murder but not for homosexuality?

Although the Mosaic Law doesn't provide a sound basis for a defense of capital punishment, there is a covenant that does - the Noahic covenant. After God destroyed mankind with a flood, he established a covenant with Noah, his family, and (most importantly for us) his descendants. Along with the promise that He would never destroy the earth by water again, God included this moral command:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Gen. 6:9, ESV)

This verse not only provides a moral norm for capital punishment but delegates the responsibility to mankind (i.e., government) and limits it to a particular crime (murder). This sets a very narrow range of applicability. The rape of a child is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. But in the absence of a clear Biblical mandate to expand the penalty beyond murder, I do not believe we can justify including child-rape under the crimes that deserve death.

We should also note that since this covenant is 'everlasting' (v. 16) and 'for all future generations' (v. 12), it's as applicable today as it was in the age of Noah. Unlike the Mosaic Law, this covenant was never superseded by any later actions of God. We should also note that if we choose to ignore this command, we are choosing to reject God's wisdom. Governments and societies, of course, may choose to rebel against God's commands but for professing Christians this shouldn't be an option.

Of course there may be times when the ability of the state to implement the death penalty is egregiously compromised. The problems that can occur with its application are numerous and complex so we must remain ever vigilant against its abuse. Indeed, respect for human dignity demands that we err on the side of caution to prevent the unjust killing of those falsely accused of committing murder. The legitimate objections, however, appear to associated with its application, rather than in the moral legitimacy of the death penalty itself.

Long ago, God made a promise to never again destroy the human race with a flood. When we see the rainbow in the sky we are to remember the everlasting covenant between God and "every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth." As Christians, though, we should do more than that. When we see a rainbow we should remember that we are made in the image of God--and remember too the price that must be paid when we destroy an image-bearer.

[Note: The use of the article "A" rather than "The" in the title is deliberate. While I think the position outlined in this post is a Christian view on the death penalty, I do not want to be so bold as to say that it must be the position on this issue. ]

The news of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliances with high-priced prostitutes fills me with sadness, regret, and dread. Sadness over the Governor's shaming his family in such a public way, regret at having to listen to the smirking schadenfreude of his political enemies, and dread that we'll have to suffer the tedious and inevitable articles and blog posts asking, "What's the problem with prostitution?"

Always ahead of the curve. Matthew Yglesias leads the meme with his post, "Thinking About Prostitution":

Whenever a politician gets caught up in a prostitution scandal, I do need to return to the fact that at the end of the day I don't really think the exchange of sex for money is serious wrongdoing in the sense that justifies criminal sanctions. Obviously, in most cases such conduct will be a form of private wrongdoing against one's spouse, etc., but that's not a matter of public concern. [emphasis in original]

The unstated reason why it is "not a matter of public concern" is because no one is harmed by prostitution, at least not in a way that would necessitate intervention by the state. This is a view commonly held by social liberals and libertarians who believe that the primary (if not sole) purpose of the law is the protection of rights (however narrowly or expansively defined).

In contrast, a traditional conservative view is that law and public policy should be concerned with public health, public safety, and public morality. The first two are shared in common with our left-leaning political cousins; it is the last item that sets us apart. While they have discarded the concept as antiquated, we maintain a view held by thinkers ranging from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas to Robert George that the promotion of virtue--"making men moral"--is a proper, though subsidiary, role of the government.

As George notes in The Clash of Orthodoxies, "public morals laws, like health and safety regulations, regulate private conduct insofar as it harms or threatens to harm, the public interest." For instance, using the example of prostitution, George argues:

Assuming, again, that prostitution is indeed immoral, then the availability of prostitutes is going to facilitate immoral acts by individuals--prostitutes and their customers. Of course, the commercial sex acts will likely take place in "private," that is, behind closed doors and it could be the case that there is no highly visible publicizing of the prostitutes' availability (though unless there is some way of getting the word out publicly, there won't be much work for the prostitutes). Still, public interests are damaged. The public has an interest in men not engaging prostitutes: for when they do, they damage their own characters; they render themselves less solid and reliable as husbands and fathers; they weaken their marriages and their ability to enter into good marriages and authentically model for others (including their own children) the virtue of chastity on which the integrity of marriages and of marriage as an institution in any given society depends; they set bad examples for others. In short they damage what I have referred to as the community's "moral ecology"--an ecology as vital to the community's well-being, and as such, as integral to the public interest, as the physical ecology which is protected by environmental laws enacted pursuant to the police powers to protect public health.

Although commonsensical, liberal-libertarians will scoff at such talk of "moral ecology." The concept is simply too foreign, too abstract, too pre-modern (i.e., pre-'60s era sexual mores) for them to grasp. While they could connect the dots between the "private wrongdoing" of littering and the inherent public concern with protecting our environment--they know why Iron Eyes Cody is crying--such talk of legislating sexual activity because of public moral harm seems...bizarre.

Regrettably, the same holds true for many people who consider themselves to be "conservatives." Because of a misunderstanding of the concept of limited government, many conservatives today have sided against their own tradition and with the liberal-libertarians on this point. They simply can't comprehend either the concept of moral ecology or the idea that government has any role in making citizens virtuous.

This post is a lament, not an argument so I won't try to defend virtue jurisprudence here. (Besides, if conservatives ignore the wisdom of Aristotle or Russell Kirk why would they listen to me?) The shame is not just that weak and ineffectual men like Spitzer succumb to temptation. No, the true regret is that we have such strong and capable apologists for sanctioning vice. We can survive the individual moral polluter. It's the people who deny that we a duty to protect our moral ecology that will be our downfall.

If I told you I was an ornithologist, you could conclude that, like John James Audubon, I study birds. If I say I'm an economist then you would presume that, like Alan Greenspan, I study markets. But if I claim to be a moralist you would not presume that I study morality, but think that, like Gladys Kravitz, I'm simply an intolerant, prudish, busybody.

Such is the degraded state of language (and morality) that "moralist" has become a synonym for judgementalism rather than being defined as a "teacher or student of morals and moral problems." Moralist has joined terms like liberal, fundamentalist, and Puritan in the lepers' colony of language. While some people choose to live with these labels, most others avoid them in order to prevent being infected by their malignant connotations.

Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a philosopher is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are "professionals" with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for "amateurs", why would we want to toss aside such a useful term as moralist?

The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:

For those who hold a belief in naturalism--the theory that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of material causes--issues of philosophy are always problematic. When it comes to issues of metaphysics or epistemology, the naturalist can often simply ignore the fact that their beliefs can't be explained using their starting premise. On ethical matters, however, they have a more difficult time being so intellectually passive.

Many naturalists (and I include most atheists in this category) who have give sufficient thought to the issue invariably concede that morality is purely relative. Others, however, have a difficult time conceding that morality is rooted in nothing deeper than personal preference. As a commenter on one of my previous posts noted:

Universal morals can start with the golden rule. That exists pretty much throughout all cultures and even into higher order primates. It doesn't take a rocket science, or an omniscient being, to figure out that you shouldn't do to people what you wouldn't want to have done to yourself.

The implication of this claim is that since the "golden rule" is a universally held belief, it must be explainable by purely naturalistic processes. My contention is that belief is false and that this moral principle could not have been developed by natural selection.

But before I can prove my point, we must first define what we mean by the Golden Rule.

The story so far: My post on waterboarding has stirred quite a reaction on RedState. After Alexham linked to it approvingly, Thomas, Jeff Emanuel, Dan McLaughlin responded with their dissent. This spurred another round of discussion, including posts by ThomasErick Erickson and Ben Domenech, who, while not agreeing with my claim, defended my integrity. Although it was unnecessary (I have the skin of a rhino and don't take much too personally), I appreciated my friends stepping in to defend my honor.

In speaking up for me, they kindly overlooked the abrasive tone I took, not only in my original post but in the comment sections of RedState. I was unduly harsh. Despite the fact that I don’t think the issue is as grey as many people seem to believe, I can't fault my friends not finding it as black-and-white as I contend. I apologize for letting my emotions get the best of me.

This post is an attempt to further clarify why I think waterboarding is a form of torture and why it should be rejected. Yesterday, I resorted to assertions intended to appeal to the conscience of my fellow Christians. Today, I'll make a modest attempt to give reasons for my position. While we may not agree on all points, I hope to convince them that the harms that come from justifying waterboarding far outweigh any imagined benefits.

Before you read further, please educate yourself on what waterboarding by watching this video of the technique being done in a controlled environment and by reading this account by Erik Lomax, a British army signalman in WWII who was waterboarded by the Japanese:

"He directed the full flow of the now-gushing pipe onto my nostrils and mouth.… Water poured down my windpipe and throat and filled my lungs and stomach. The torrent was unimaginably choking. This is the sensation of drowning, on dry land, on a hot dry afternoon. Your humanity bursts from within you as you gag and choke. I tried very hard to will unconsciousness but no relief came."

The beating and the interrogation continued. "I had nothing to say: I was beyond invention. So they turned on the tap again, and again there was that nausea of rising water from inside my bodily cavity."

Should we tell Erick Lomax that he wasn't tortured?

During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Michael Mukasey was asked "Is waterboarding constitutional? Mukasey answered: "I don't know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

Since Michael Mukasey is unsure, let me clear it up for him: Yes, waterboarding is torture. And torture should never be legal.

Even more disturbing than the idea that a future attorney general doesn't know what's involved in waterboarding is that we live in an age when a familiarity with torture techniques is to be expected of our leaders. How did we get to the point where such a question needs to be asked of an attorney general? Who allowed our country to succumb to such fear and moral cowardice that we parse the the meaning and definition of "torture?"

I blame myself, and implicate my fellow Christians. We have remained silent and treated an issue once considered unthinkable--the acceptability of torture--like a concept worthy of honest debate. But there is no room for debate: torture is immoral and should be clearly and forcefully denounced. We continue to shame ourselves and our Creator by refusing to speak out against such outrages to human dignity.

For a prime example, consider the muted response to Deroy Murdock's recent column, "Three Cheers for Waterboarding." Murdock--a dispiriting example of what passes for a "conservative" in our culture--not only justifies the use of torture, but applauds it: "Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud."

(How degraded has conservatism become? Consider: Historically, a utilitarianism-embracing Benthamite like Murdock used to be a prime target of conservative criticism. Today, he gets to be regular contributor to Human Events and National Review Online.)

Compare the opinion of this ignorant scribbler and armchair general to men who have served their country with honor and distinction: Sen. John McCain says waterboarding is torture and adds " People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that. ”Charles Krulak, former commandant of the Marine Corps, and Joseph Hoar, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, say that waterboarding is torture and note that such methods "have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy." John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, says "Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it's the most iconic example of torture."

As Christians we must never condone the use of methods that threaten to undermine the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God. Murdock may believe there is nothing “repugnant” about waterboarding. But there is something clearly repugnant about our unwillingness to distance ourselves from the fear-driven utilitarians willing to embrace the use of torture.

Related: In December 2005, Justin Taylor and I sponsored a Christian ethics symposium on torture. A number of Christian thinkers, including Albert Mohler, Richard John Neuhaus, Darrell Cole, and Robert Vischer contributed brief essays.

For those still unclear on the concept, the legal definition of torture to which the U.S. subscribes can be found in the UN Convention Against Torture:

Earlier this week we saw one of the most dispiriting scenes in America: tens of thousands of demonstrators converging on a small town in the Deep South to to promote injustice.

The rally in Jena, Louisiana for the "Jena Six" called for the release of six criminals in the name of "civil rights." Unfortunately, this isn't a unique phenomenon. Over the past few decades Americans have too frequently made political martyrs of criminals, men like Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal. When we are willing to exonerate murders in the name of "civil rights" it shouldn't be surprising that thousands of Americans can excuse the actions of these six young, cowardly thugs.

At least in the cases of Leonard and Mumia, the defenders could pretend that the murders might possibly be innocent. Not so in the case of the Jena 6. More than 40 witnesses saw Mychal Bell (age 16), Robert Bailey, Jr. (17), Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Theo Shaw (17), and Jesse Ray Beard (14) viciously attack Justin Barker (17).

According to the witness statements, several people claim to have seen Bell punch Barker from behind, instantly knocking him to the concrete walkway. Witnesses say the other students then stomped on Barker, kicking him in the face and head as he was on the ground.

[Note: I deleted the quote by Coach Fowler. His claim that Barker was unconscious when the ambulance picked him up is in dispute.]

(This, by the way, is the event that Colbert King, the despicable columnist for the Washington Post, referred to as a "schoolyard fight.")

So the facts of the situation are that one cowardly thug sucker-punches a kid from behind and then joins with five other cowards in stomping the unconscious body. For this crime the "Free the Jena Six" crowd believes the proper punishment is....nothing.

But wait, it gets better.

[Warning: This post contains a frank--albeit not indecent--discussion of homosexual behavior.]

The recent news that Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in a Minnesota airport restroom for lewd conduct is shocking. Perhaps even more shocking is the reactions by some people who are surprised to learn that such behavior is rather commonplace. In fact, many otherwise urbane and cultured people act as if they are surprised to find that homosexual men engage in anonymous sexual encounters in public places.

Many well-meaning people--including Christians--fall for the politically correct lie that homosexual men (i.e., men that engage in homosexual behaviors) are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexual men. Such claims of behavioral equivalency, however, are demonstrably false. For decades social scientists have extensively documented the fact that extreme promiscuity is a common occurrence among homosexual males.

One study published in the Journal of Sex Research examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals and found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners." The same study notes that about half of all the men surveyed said they had "casual sex only" while less than one quarter were monogamous. Such results are not uncommon (see my prior post on the subject for more data).

So where are these casual liaisons taking place? There are a number of public settings for these private encounters but since the 1930s one of the most common has been public restrooms. In the slang of the homosexual subculture, the term for such facilities is "tearooms" (in Britain the gay slang term is "cottaging".).

In 1970 sociologist Laud Humphreys published Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places, a landmark ethnographical study of anonymous male-male sexual encounters in public restrooms. In his book, Humphreys explains the bizarre set of rules and rituals associated with tearooms. But it is the focus on the reactions of the participants that is the most disheartening:

"Hypocrisy makes a politician’s sex life fair game," says Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, justifying his targeting of "hypocritical" politicians. Working in conjunction with the so-called "D.C. Madam", Flynt recently exposed Louisiana Senator and "family values" advocate David Vitter as a customer of an escort service

By his own admission, Vitter is guilty of being an adulterer and a whore monger. But what he doesn't appear to be is a hypocrite. As Jeremy Pierce notes, "A lot of people have been calling [Vitter] a hypocrite for being strong on family values politically while having an adulterous relation with a prostitute. This sort of comment derives from ignorance about what hypocrisy is."

Indeed, the American Heritage Dictionary defines hypocrisy as "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." The British literary critic William Hazlitt once explained, “He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves”

By all appearances Sen. Vitter does indeed believe in such "family values" as marital fidelity. Where he has failed is in behaving in a way that comports with those values; a matter not of hypocrisy but of moral inconsistency. Such consistency is essential--particularly for democratically elected representatives--for establishing and maintaining trust. This is why private behavior has such public implications. The marital infidelity of a legislator, for example, is strong signal that they are untrustworthy: If a man cannot be trusted to keep a sacred vow to an intimate, how can I trust him to keep his word to me, a stranger?

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who think it's not that simple. When it comes to ethics and morality I am one of those who think it is that simple and that the world can be divided between Christians and everyone else.

This is not to say that the group labeled "Christians" consists of people who are inherently more moral or ethical than those "everyone else." Because of God's common grace, both groups have access to the "law written on the heart" and have the ability to act in accordance with the natural law. Where we differ is that Christians also have the special revelation of Scripture and the Incarnation. The ultimate source for Christian ethics, therefore, must be founded on God and the work of His son, Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this is often not the case and our ethical theories tend to be as indistinguishable from non-believers as are our moral actions.

Without digressing into an extended critique of the ethical theories typically embraced by Christians (deontological, Divine Command, natural law, etc.) I want to point out that they tend to share a common trait. Almost all of these theories focus on epistemological questions such as how we can know the good or how we can discern "ought" from "is". As essential as these questions are to moral philosophy they tend to distract us from the more pressing issue of how we are able to do what is moral.

There is an underlying assumption that once questions about right and wrong are answered then the ethical questions are settled. But in real world situations, most moral quandaries exist not because we fail to distinguish between good and evil but that we fail to do that which is good.

In his collection of thought experiments, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, philosopher Julian Baggini includes the following excerpt from Douglas Adam's The Restaurant at the End of the Universe:

After forty years of vegetarianism, Max Berger was about to sit down to a feast of pork sausages, crispy bacon and pan-fried chicken breast. Max had always missed the taste of meat, but his principles were stronger than his culinary cravings. But now he was able to eat meat with a clear conscience.

The sausages and bacon had come from a pig called Priscilla he had met the week before. The pig had been genetically engineered to be able to speak and, more importantly, to want to be eaten. Ending up on a human table was Priscilla's lifetime ambition and she woke up on the day of her slaughter with a keen sense of anticipation. She had told all of this to Max just before rushing off to the comfortable and humane slaughterhouse. Having heard her story, Max thought it would be disrespectful not to eat her.

The chicken had come from a genetically modified bird which had been 'decerebrated'. In other words, it lived the life of a vegetable, with no awareness of self, environment, pain or pleasure. Killing it was therefore no more barbarous than uprooting a carrot.

Yes as the plate was place before him, Max felt a twinge of nausea. Was this just a reflex reaction, caused by a lifetime of vegetarianism? Or was it the physical sign of justifiable distress? Collecting himself, he picked up his knife and fork...

While the passage is ostensibly about the ethics of vegetarianism, I believe the questions it raises can be extended to other interesting areas. Specifically, I want to explore a specific theme that I believe is parallel to human experience.

Each week my neighbors and I engage in a curious ethical ritual. On Wednesday morning before we leave for work we set outside our doors an artifact which expresses our obligation to the welfare of future generations. We call these objects “recycling bins.”

Recycling is one example of an action that we take in the present to benefit a group in the future. The earth has enough space and resources that all current generations could be extremely wasteful without having a detrimental effect on the global population. Future generations, however, would likely suffer if we were careless in our use of resources. For this reason the recycling of waste products is viewed as an important, albeit minor, act of virtue.

Although reasonable people do not need to be persuaded that we have moral obligations to future generations, it would be useful to examine what form the argument would take. Philosopher Jim Nolt outlines the argument as follows:

1. We have obligations to all currently living people.
2 . Future people are in no morally relevant respect different from currently living people.
3. We have obligations to all future people.

Nolt believes the argument is sound and adds:

The moral irrelevance of time of birth is perhaps best understood by the realization that we are future people—to our predecessors. The distinction between past and future is, after all, not ultimate and absolute, but relative to temporal perspective. In that respect, it is like the designation, “foreigner,” which is relative to geographical perspective. Who counts as a foreigner depends on the country we inhabit. Likewise, who counts as a future person depends on the time we inhabit. All people are foreigners to people of countries other than their own. Likewise, all people belong to the future generations of their predecessors. [emphasis in original]

Obviously we have generic obligations (i.e., don’t despoil the planet) to future generic groups (e.g., people living in 2056 A.D.). However, I contend that we also have specific obligations to specific individuals in the future. For example, I believe that Christian men and women who are unmarried (and are not called to a life of chastity) have certain present obligations to their future spouse.

If I told you I was an ornithologist, you could conclude that, like John James Audubon, I study birds. If I say I'm an economist then you would presume that, like Alan Greenspan, I study markets. But if I claim to be a moralist you would not presume that I study morality, but think that, like Gladys Kravitz, I'm simply an intolerant, prudish, busybody.

Such is the degraded state of language (and morality) that "moralist" has become a synonym for judgementalism rather than being defined as a "teacher or student of morals and moral problems." Moralist has joined terms like liberal, fundamentalist, and Puritan in the lepers' colony of language. While some people choose to live with these labels, most others avoid them in order to prevent being infected by their malignant connotations.

Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a philosopher is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are "professionals" with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for "amateurs", why would we want to toss aside such a useful term as moralist?

The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:

My career as a budding plagiarist ended at the tender age of fourteen. Attempting to impress a girl at church camp, I tried to pass off as my own a poem I had copied from Reader�s Digest. Unfortunately the subterfuge was too effective. She was so impressed by my work that she insisted on reading it in front of the entire assembly. As she read the poem aloud I blushed with shame. But guilt faded and I became flushed with pride after the pastor said the poem exemplified my �sensitive spirit.�

My enjoyment of the crime was cut short, though, when another girl and her mother told me that they had read �my poem� -- Comes the Dawn--before in a Minnesota newspaper. They asked if I had published other works. I said I had been printed in numerous newspapers and magazines, a sloppy, transparent lie. They simply smiled graciously and, to my great relief, changed the subject. We never spoke of it again and no one else ever expressed any awareness of my crime.

Even now the confession fills me with regret and shame. Yet I wouldn't change the outcome even if I could. For that day I stumbled upon the first postulate of plagiarism, a truth that almost every plagiarist eventually learns: Any text worth stealing has already been read by someone in your audience.

I was reminded of this incident after reading of the strange, sad tale of Ben Domenech. A week after being hired by WashingtonPost.com to start a conservative-oriented blog, Ben was forced to resign when it was discovered that he plagiarized material in articles he wrote for various print publications. Initially, he claimed there were explanations for the apparent impropriety. But within days he admitted his mistake and apologized for his actions.

Ben and I have been friendly acquaintances for a couple of years. He was generous and encouraging when I first began blogging and even invited me, about a year ago, to join a group political blog he was starting. (Although I appreciated the opportunity, I declined because I wanted to focus more on culture and religion than on politics. The blog�I believe that call it RedState�is still around, and appears to have picked up a handful of readers.) Ben is amiable, idealistic, smart, and talented. But he�s also a flawed young man who has displayed an incredible lack of integrity.

The appetite for sex, thought C.S. Lewis, is in �ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.� How else, he wondered, can we explain the fascination men have with watching a girl publicly undress on a stage? The �strip-tease� shows the absurdity of our propensity for sexual titillation:

Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?

One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country.
...

Nor is the hypothesis of 'starvation' the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations.

In a country that spends more money on �adult entertainment� than pro-football, basketball and baseball combined, we shouldn�t be surprised that other appetites are also prone to overindulgence. While we may not have special theaters where food in seductively unveiled (at least not yet), there is certainly something �queer about the state� of the food instinct in America. Take, for example, the MONSTER THICKBURGER� by the fast-food chain Hardee�s.

Described as a �monument to decadence�, the burger contains an artery-clogging 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat. When combined in a �combo meal� with large fries and a medium drink, the total tips the scales at 2,285 calories. Such a meal would comprise 77% of the daily caloric intake for the average male (175 lbs., moderately active) and 99% for the average female (150 lb, moderately active). To work off those calories a person would need to jog for over 3 hours, walk briskly for 7.5 hours, or simply sit in front of the TV for 31 hours straight.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who think it's not that simple. When it comes to ethics and morality I am one of those who think it is that simple and that the world can be divided between Christians and everyone else.

This is not to say that the group labeled "Christians" consists of people who are inherently more moral or ethical than those "everyone else." Because of God's common grace, both groups have access to the "law written on the heart" and have the ability to act in accordance with the natural law. Where we differ is that Christians also have the special revelation of Scripture and the Incarnation. The ultimate source for Christian ethics, therefore, must be founded on God and the work of His son, Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this is often not the case and our ethical theories tend to be as indistinguishable from non-believers as are our moral actions.

Without digressing into an extended critique of the ethical theories typically embraced by Christians (deontological, Divine Command, natural law, etc.) I want to point out that they tend to share a common trait. Almost all of these theories focus on epistemological questions such as how we can know the good or how we can discern "ought" from "is". As essential as these questions are to moral philosophy they tend to distract us from the more pressing issue of how we are able to do what is moral.

There is an underlying assumption that once questions about right and wrong are answered then the ethical questions are settled. But in real world situations, most moral quandaries exist not because we fail to distinguish between good and evil but that we fail to do that which is good.

Recently there has been widespread discussion and news coverage on two seemingly unrelated topics � euthanasia and torture. Taken together, though, they reveal our peculiar attitudes and moral reasoning on suffering and death.

The first story concerns the ethical requirements for treating war detainees. Earlier this week Sen. John McCain proposed to implement a single set of acceptable interrogation practices for foreign detainees that would ban not only torture, but also less severe "cruel, inhumane and degrading" practices. Although President Bush has repeatedly stated that the U.S. does not condone or practice torture, Vice President Cheney reportedly lead a behind-the-scenes drive to block McCain's amendment from becoming law.

The second item involves allegations of euthanasia in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The Louisiana attorney general's office is investigating the claim that terminally ill patients at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans were given lethal doses of medication by doctors or nurses in the days after Hurricane Katrina. A physician claims that he heard medical staff discussing the option of euthanasia for those patients who had no chance of surviving. He said that he listened to a discussion between other doctors about euthanasing the worst of the cases and then saw the area where he was working cleared of everyone except for the patients, the hospital administrator and two doctors.

While Cheney�s attempt to exempt the CIA from engaging in conduct that borders on torture has been roundly criticized, many people are less critical of the actions of the New Orleans doctors. �Whatever decisions they made, they made in prayer,� says Crispin Sartwel. �They made in the midst of what could only have been the deepest and most tortured encounter with their own consciences.� Radley Balko agrees and notes, �It would be absurd for anyone to pretend to know what they should have done, or to apply the law as it exists now to a time and place where social order, law, and probity were suspended.� �To prosecute these doctors and nurses would be barbaric and serve no purpose whatsoever,� adds Ed Brayton. �They did what they did out of compassion, not malice.�

While I don�t know where Sartwel, Balko, or Brayton stand on the issue of torture I suspect that they are against the practice. I suspect that they believe that torture is an illegitimate use of power but that mercy killing is, in certain cases, justifiable. This moral calculus leads to a peculiar standard: Inducing suffering to prevent death is unconscionable but inducing death to prevent suffering is excusable.

[Note: This is post #7 in the Blogiversary II series.]

For those who hold a belief in naturalism � the theory that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws � issues of philosophy are always problematic.

When it comes to issues of metaphysics or epistemology, the naturalist can often function by simply ignoring the fact that their beliefs can't be explained using their starting premise. On ethical matters, however, they have a difficult time being so intellectually passive.

Many naturalists (and I include most atheists in this category) who have sufficiently thought about the issue invariably concede that morality is purely relative. Others, however, have a difficult time conceding that morality is rooted in nothing deeper than personal preference. Take, for example, this representative comment by �Mr. Moderate� on a recent post I wrote about atheism:

Universal morals can start with the golden rule. That exists pretty much throughout all cultures and even into higher order primates. It doesn't take a rocket science, or an omniscient being, to figure out that you shouldn't do to people what you wouldn't want to have done to yourself.

The implication of this claim is that since the �golden rule� is a universally held belief, it must be explainable by purely naturalistic processes. My contention is that belief is false and that this moral principle could not have been developed by natural selection.

But before I can prove my point, we must first define what we mean by the �Golden Rule.�

In a recent Newsday article, James Pinkerton claims that �there's no way that Washington will settle Schiavo-esque controversies.� Ironically, while the reasons he provides to support his claim are inadequate, his article itself hints at why legal wrangling will continue in the future. Pinkerton provides a prime example of how many Americans are simply unable to think about ethics in a way that is not both utilitarian and subjectively applied. While the first part of his argument is intriguing, his lengthy conclusion is simply embarrassing:

�Is it a boy or a girl?"

How often have we asked that question after the arrival of a newborn or after receiving the result of a sonogram? What does is reveal about us as humans that we place such emphasis on sexual identity? Does the simple question reveal a deeper understanding of the importance and uniqueness of being created male and female? For millennia parents have anxiously awaited the answer. But what happens when we can decide the answer before the child ever enters the mother�s womb?

This question no longer lingers in the realm of the hypothetical. Although rarely discussed, reproductive technologies have made it possible for parents to have complete control over the sex of their child. The primary means include: prenatal diagnosis (either through a sonogram or amniocentesis) followed by abortion of fetuses having the unwanted sex; preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) followed by selective implantation based on sex; and (a less certain technique) pre-fertilization separation of sperm into X- and Y-bearing ones followed by selective transfer. The first two methods select post-conception, while the last seeks to determine sex before human life begins.

In a country that prizes both consumerism and the unquestionable right to abortion, it�s not surprising that the two have melded together, providing would-be parents with the means to control the sex of their offspring. "These are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices,� said Jeffrey Steinberg, director of the Fertility Institutes, which offers the service at clinics in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. �We cherish that in the United States."

With the release of his report claiming that abstinence education curricula teach "false and misleading information," California Congressman Henry Waxman has reignited the debate over federal funding of sex education programs. In his 26-page report, the Democratic representative presents some valid criticisms of abstinence program materials. Such factual inaccuracy is inexcusable; it fails our students and undermines the value of these programs.

Unfortunately, Waxman�s report is also plagued with false and misleading information. His denial of the well-established correlation between teen sex and increased risk of attempted suicide as well as his refusal to acknowledge the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs undercuts the report�s integrity. By presenting inaccurate material as established fact, Waxman has merely given his critics justification for dismissing his findings.

But the debate between �comprehensive� and �abstinence-only� sex education programs is itself a misguided focus on a false dilemma. Both approaches are primarily concerned with indoctrination toward a particular viewpoint and inoculation against the effects of certain behavior. Neither is concerned with providing a true education. The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to �just say no� while the comprehensive crowd want students to �just wear a condom.� Both are more concerned about �effectiveness� than with teaching teens how to think for themselves about human sexuality.

For a program to be about education, though, rather than just effectiveness requires that it incorporate critical moral reasoning. This element is curiously missing from both approaches to sex education. While not exhaustive, the implementation of this feature would require focusing on the following areas:

The appetite for sex, thought C.S. Lewis, is in �ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.� How else, he wondered, can we explain the fascination men have with watching a girl publicly undress on a stage? The �strip-tease� shows the absurdity of our propensity for sexual titillation:

Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?

One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country.
...

Nor is the hypothesis of 'starvation' the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations.

In a country that spends more money on �adult entertainment� than pro-football, basketball and baseball combined, we shouldn�t be surprised that other appetites are also prone to overindulgence. While we may not have special theaters where food in seductively unveiled (at least not yet), there is certainly something �queer about the state� of the food instinct in America. Take, for example, the introduction of the MONSTER THICKBURGER� by the fast-food chain Hardee�s.

Described as a �monument to decadence�, the burger contains an artery-clogging 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat. When combined in a �combo meal� with large fries and a medium drink, the total tips the scales at 2,285 calories. Such a meal would comprise 77% of the daily caloric intake for the average male (175 lbs., moderately active) and 99% for the average female (150 lb, moderately active). To work off those calories a person would need to jog for over 3 hours, walk briskly for 7.5 hours, or simply sit in front of the TV for 31 hours straight.

After exit polls showed that 22% of voters listed �moral values� as the issue that mattered most in deciding how people voted for President, pundits in both the MSM and the blogosphere quickly began spinning the results to show it was not as important as such issues as the war or terrorism. A new post-election survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that they were right � at least if the question is worded in a particular way.

The survey found that if voters are given multiple choices from a list then moral values really was the top factor in deciding for whom to vote (27 percent for moral values, 22 percent for Iraq, 21 percent for "economy/jobs", 14 percent for terrorism/security). But if voters were asked, "What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted for President?" the war in Iraq was three times as more likely to be the response (25% to 9%).

While pundits on both sides will claim this survey as vindication, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the �moral values� category can't be ignored. Some Democrats are already asking how the DNC can co-opt the position for themselves. But Democrats who believe they can take up the issue as their own need to be aware that voters already have their own ideas about what constitutes these moral values. The poll press release summarizes:

Bespectacled, balding, and thin, the Australian scholar Peter Singer looks like a typical college professor. You would hardly expect someone so unassuming to be so controversial. You would never be able to tell simply by looking at him that he is one of the most dangerous men in America.

But Singer is undoubtably dangerous. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and an �ethicist� who espouses the legitimacy of non-voluntary euthanasia, infanticide, and even bestiality. While his brand of utilitarianism may appear extreme he has held positions at some of the most elite universities on three continents. He currently holds the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, a position he was appointed to by Harold Shapiro, the former chair of Bill Clinton's bioethics panel.

Singer is also eerily influential. He has served as editor for prestigious philosophy journals, appeared on numerous television programs, and even penned the entry on �Ethics� for the Encyclopedia Britannica. His most dubious distinction, though, is that he inspired animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk to start the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

But to fully appreciate Singer�s ethical view requires reading his works. To give a representative taste of his thoughts I�ve selected a few choice quotes from some of his most popular works. There is always the danger that taken out of context the quotes could be misconstrued, which is why I recommend that whenever possible the passages be read in their original. Taken in context only makes his positions more disturbing. Singer�s views are chilling in their banality; he's the Adolph Eichmann of practical ethics.

[Note: Because of the emphasis on the upcoming election, I haven't taken the opportunity to explore a political issue that has always intrigued me -- Christian libertarianism. The main complaint I have with most libertarians is that they often work backwards from a grievance to the development of their core beliefs. Christians, on the other hand, must start with Biblical principles and work their way to a coherent political philosophy. A number of my bloggers whose intellect and opinions I respect (particularly John Coleman, Josh Claybourn, and Vox Day) subscribe to some version of Christian libertarianism. In the hopes that they (and others) will join me in exploring the foundational issues in more detail, I'm reposting an article I wrote last December explaining why I do not think libertarianism is tenable. I'm open to changing my opinion, though, so I'm interested in hearing critiques of my position and a defense of why libertarianism is compatible with a Biblical worldview.]

There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.*

�It is incomprehensible that trafficking in human beings is taking place in the 21st Century � incomprehensible but true,� said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell �Trafficking leaves no land untouched, including our own.� Indeed, in 2003, the U.S. Government estimated that approximately 800,000-900,000 people are trafficked across international borders worldwide annually, and between 18,000 and 20,000 of those victims are trafficked into the United States.

According to a State Report released last summer, women, children and men are trafficked into the international sex trade and into forced labor situations throughout the world. Many are lured by promises of good jobs, unaware that their travel documents will be seized, they will be held in debt bondage, or that they will be subject to brutal beatings. Traffickers also kidnap and abduct their victims. (1)

Over the past fifty years there has been a population explosion within third world nations. With millions of economically and socially vulnerable people around the world, the "supply" of potential slaves today makes them cheaper than they�ve ever been in the history of the world. An average slave in the American South in 1850 cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today's money; today a slave costs an average of $90. Because they can be had so cheaply, they are of little value to the traffickers. If slaves get sick or injured or merely outlive their usefulness they are often dumped or killed. (2)

What can be done to end this global tragedy? Ken Bales, a sociologist and expert on modern-day slavery, believes that human trafficking could be eliminated within a generation if three things were to happen:

There is a particular group of Americans, many of them Christians, who don�t give much thought to their material wealth. Forty-six percent of them not only own their own homes but have more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. Nearly three-quarters of them live in households which own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of their households have a color television and over half own two or more. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player while 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.*

Some of them vote Republican. Others would identify with the �Religious Right.� More than a few of them are evangelicals. This group of citizens are among the richest humans in the world yet give almost nothing in order to relieve the suffering of their less fortunate neighbors on the planet.

Who are these people? In America we call them �the poor.�

�If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter� says Max Ehrmann in his �Desiderata�, �for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.� I often remind myself that this platitude holds true for nations as well. Otherwise, whenever I survey the moral failings of my country, I would be constantly tempted to fall back on the excuse that, �At least we�re not as bad as the French.�

This was my initial thought after reading a recent survey that claims 39% of Americans agree with the statement, "my religious beliefs factor into my sexual behavior." I thought this was a rather paltry number until I saw that the percentages were 16% for the U.K., 6% for Germany, and an appalling 3% for France. (I realize these countries are becoming almost completely irreligious but I still would have expected the influx of Muslims would have buoyed the statistics to at least the double digit range.)

What I found most surprising is that China, a country that has never been too fond of sex or religion, had a higher response (15%) than some of the states in the former Christian stronghold of Europe. The Chinese are also far more likely to think that monogamy is the natural state for human beings: 70% of them agree, compared with 57% of Americans, 44% of the French, 42% of Germans, and 40% of the English.

The Chinese are also by far the least likely to consider it normal for a adult over age 30 to have had 10 or more different lovers over the course of their single years. Just 17% of Chinese agree, compared with 30% of French, 49% of Americans, 52% of Germans, and a 59% percent of British.

The Chinese, though, take a more liberal view of extra-marital affairs in which �"nobody gets hurt.� Nearly a quarter of them (23%) believe that such oxymoronic affairs are acceptable. Americans and Brits are less likely to agree (9% and 11% respectively). Naturally, the French hold a similarly low view of marriage with 20% of men and 17% of women agreeing that nothing is wrong with such infidelities.

While the results of the survey are depressing, they aren�t exactly surprising. With the decline of religious institutions in the West and the growing divide between belief and action, it isn�t unexpected to find people capitulating to sexual attitudes that were once considered immoral. That�s especially true of the French. After all they will surrender to anything.

(Hat tip: The Revealer)

For those who hold a belief in naturalism--the theory that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of material causes--issues of philosophy are always problematic. When it comes to issues of metaphysics or epistemology, the naturalist can often simply ignore the fact that their beliefs can't be explained using their starting premise. On ethical matters, however, they have a more difficult time being so intellectually passive.

Many naturalists (and I include most atheists in this category) who have give sufficient thought to the issue invariably concede that morality is purely relative. Others, however, have a difficult time conceding that morality is rooted in nothing deeper than personal preference. As a commenter on one of my previous posts noted:

Universal morals can start with the golden rule. That exists pretty much throughout all cultures and even into higher order primates. It doesn't take a rocket science, or an omniscient being, to figure out that you shouldn't do to people what you wouldn't want to have done to yourself.

The implication of this claim is that since the "golden rule" is a universally held belief, it must be explainable by purely naturalistic processes. My contention is that belief is false and that this moral principle could not have been developed by natural selection.

But before I can prove my point, we must first define what we mean by the Golden Rule.

I�ve discovered that when you post a two-part series on a controversial topic that you probably shouldn�t post half of it before you leave town for three days. Otherwise you might return home to find 50+ comments that need addressing before you can move on to the next part of the argument. That appears to be the case in �Wagering a Life�, probably one of the most misunderstood posts I�ve ever written. I take the blame for the confusion. The original was too short and poorly worded to adequately make the points I intended, so I need to make a few clarifications before I begin part two.

While stumping in Denver, John Kerry took a few pot shots at President Bush�s scientific policy and expressed how he'd be different:

I am proud that today 47 Nobel Laureates have sent an open letter to America in support of my campaign and our cause to invest and lead the world in science. As president, I will listen to the advice of our scientists so I can make the best decisions. Their reports and evaluations will be open so that you can make informed decisions as well. This is your future and I will let science guide us, not ideology.

Ideology? Well, some of us prefer to call it ethics, Senator. But since you'd subordinate any moral qualms to the whims of science, I guess it really doesn�t matter what you call it, does it?

After listing more ways in which we should �pursue the limitless potential of science�, Kerry adds:

I have full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass -- with humane values and sound ethics guiding the way.

OMF Serge, an oral surgeon with an interest in bioethics, explains why that isn�t such a wise idea:

How old should a person be before it becomes acceptable to treat them as an object? Where do we draw the line of demarcation between the age when you are treated as a human and the age it becomes acceptable to treat you as an object? Most people set the standard at eighteen, the magical age when a person can register to vote and buy lottery tickets. Other people, though, would choose to set the age lower. Much, much lower. Naturally, some of these people can be found at Hooters.

Hooters is a quintessentially American restaurant, the epitome of middle-class degeneracy. The chain of restaurants caters to one of the primal needs of modern manhood: the desire to eat horrible food served by skimpily clad women. Taking its place alongside Maxim magazine and The Man Show, Hooters stands as one of the symbols of our post-emasculated culture. Few sights are as pitiably ferine as watching men licking chicken grease off their fingers while leering at the silicon enhanced mammary glands of post-pubescent girls. It would be cause for outrage if it wasn't so completly pathetic. This new era is even worse -- if that's even possible -- than the days when Alan Alda and Phil Donahue were our country's standards of masculinity. (Come back, Robert Bly! Come back you sissified, drum-beating, Iron John-types! All is forgiven!)

Hooters, however, was apparently unsatisfied with being merely loathsome and decided to veer off into the realm of the downright creepy. How else to explain holding a "Little Miss Hooters" contest for girls five and under? The contest, which required the infants to dress in little orange spandex shorts and a tied up Hooters t-shirt, was to be held at a location in Florida. Whether the pageant was intended as a homage to the children�s favorite skanky waitresses or was a marketing ploy to attract the elusive pedophilic chicken wing-eating demographic remains to be seen.

Bestiality. Prostitution. Adultery. Incest. Slate legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick isn’t convinced, “Anyone else bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage?" she laments in her latest article. While I think most of us are more frustrated by the refusal of same-sex marriage proponents to address these arguments, she does have a point.

Gay marriage isn’t going to lead to legitimizing incest or prostitution nor will heterosexual marriage fall apart because Adam and Steve got hitched. I also don’t expect anyone (other than Peter Singer perhaps) to be in a rush to marry their goat.

There is, however, one landing pad at the end of the slippery slope that gay rights supporters can’t ignore – polygamy. The ink on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing homosexual couples to marry wasn't even dry when the polyamourous groups took their place in the “Right to Marry" crusade.

Since the polygamy issue can't be brushed off, Lithwick decides to outline the case against it: