In the movie Rio Bravo, a bad guy shoots an innocent man and then the sheriff (John Wayne),with the help of a small band of misfits, needs to hold the bad guy in jail until the US marshall arrives. Meanwhile, the bad guy's brother, a wealthy rancher, keeps on paying people to try to kill the sheriff and his friends so that he can get his brother out of jail before he hangs.
By the end, it looks like the sheriff has lost. The rancher's hired men succeed in capturing one of the deputy sheriffs (Dean Martin) and insists on a prisoner exchange. The sheriff brings his prisoner to the appointed place, as does the rancher. They set their prisoners free and the prisoners start walking across to the other side.
Then something unexpected happens. The deputy sheriff, just as he reaches the midway point, jumps the murderer, wrestles him to the ground, and then manges to get him behind a wall, where he proceeds to knock him unconscious.
This got me to thinking: was it right, what the deputy sheriff did? After all, the sheriff had agreed to swap prisoners and ordinarily it isn't right to break faith on a solemn agreement.
Yes, it was right. The rancher was a bad guy and the sheriff was a good guy. The sheriff's prisoner was a murderer. And the rancher, who was already responsible for the deaths of several innocent men, had apprehended the deputy sheriff by force and left the sheriff with no alternative to set a murderer free. To set a murderer free under the compulsion of another murderer would be a failure of justice. To outsmart and thwart the rancher, even by breaking faith, is to bring about justice.
So is it alright to do a thing in the fight against evil that would be morally wrong if it were done by an evildoer in the pursuit of evil? Apparently yes, at least that is the conclusion that one would have to draw from watching this movie.
Does this mean that the end justifies the means? If you break your word in order to accomplish something good, it's ok, but if it's in order to accomplish something selfish or bad, then it's not?
I think it just means that the context of an action determines its meaning. When government takes the life of a convicted murderer, that is an act of justice. When a person takes the life of a would-be murderer in self-defense, that is an act of justice. When a murderer takes the life of an innocent man, that is an act of injustice. So when a good man breaks his word with a bad man in order to make sure that a murderer does not go free, that is an act of justice.
How might this apply to the political affairs of the US? Consider this article.
"GUANTANAMO BAY – A United Nations committee has reprimanded the U.S. for trying Omar Khadr for war crimes and detaining hundreds of children in Iraq and Afghanistan, when international law requires that they be rehabilitated. Khadr, who was 15 when he was shot and captured in Afghanistan in 2002, and Afghan detainee Mohammed Jawad are on trial here for allegedly attacking U.S. troops."
Ordinarily it would be wrong to try a fifteen-year old and, under certain circumstances, it might make sense for international law to require the rehabilitation rather than the punishment of children. In the case of terrorism, though, so many innocent lives are at stake that if a child becomes a terrorist, then it would seem to be a matter of justice to prevent that child from killing many innocent people.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Treaty-Making and Virtue
In Federalist 75, Publius explains that the Senate must share in the power to make treaties, because the President might lack virtue:
"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration....A man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
The US Constitution is designed to make provision for the possible lack of virtue of those who hold power over us.
"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration....A man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
The US Constitution is designed to make provision for the possible lack of virtue of those who hold power over us.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Not a Prophet
Two reasons why Jeremiah Wright is not a prophet.
1. Prophets say things that are true, but Pastor Wright says things that are not true. The US government did not create AIDs, did not give syphilis to African-Americans, did not introduce drugs to the African-American community, etc.
2. Prophets emphasize personal responsibility, but Pastor Wright teaches African-Americans that the responsibility for their problems lies with everyone but themselves.
Bill Cosby would be a much better example of a prophet to the African-American community than Pastor Wright.
1. Prophets say things that are true, but Pastor Wright says things that are not true. The US government did not create AIDs, did not give syphilis to African-Americans, did not introduce drugs to the African-American community, etc.
2. Prophets emphasize personal responsibility, but Pastor Wright teaches African-Americans that the responsibility for their problems lies with everyone but themselves.
Bill Cosby would be a much better example of a prophet to the African-American community than Pastor Wright.
Self Restraint
Two incidents in Sands of Iwo Jima.
1. Three soldiers jump in a fox hole and realize they are low on ammunition. One of them volunteers to run back to camp to get some and bring it back. After he gets the ammo, he comes upon another soldier making coffee. He sits down and enjoys a cup. Meanwhile, his buddies run out of ammunition and have to make a run for it. They jump into another fox hole, only to find themselves surrounded by a gang of Japanese soldiers with bayonets. One of them is killed and the other escapes wounded. The third soldier returns to find his friend dead.
This incident shows how deadly it can be--for others in this case--when a man lacks self-control.
2. As night falls later that day, the Americans find themselves needing to hold their position with very few soldiers. The commanding officer tells Stryker (the John Wayne character) to spread out his men and make sure they don't smoke or talk or do anything that would give away their position. Otherwise, the Japanese will be able to find out how vulnerable they are and will attack.
During the night, someone starts calling out the name of the American soldiers, as if he were lying wounded on the battlefield. The soldier stationed with Stryker says he is going to go out and see who it is, but Stryker tells him not to because it could be a trap. The soldier tells Stryker that the only way he's going to stop him is to kill him--and Stryker immediately aims a rifle at his face. The soldier accuses Stryker of being inhuman. The scene ends with the voice from the battlefield calling out Stryker's name and the camera focused on Stryker'sface--and you can see that he is in agony. He knows that he needs to stay where he is even if the cry for help is real.
Stryker is not being inhuman here: he is exercising self-restraint--the very quality that the first man lacked. He knows that if he does not stay put, it may well lead to the death of his companions and the failure of the entire mission. Just as the first man's lack of restraint led to the death of his friend, Stryker's ability to exercise restraint keeps his friends safe.
1. Three soldiers jump in a fox hole and realize they are low on ammunition. One of them volunteers to run back to camp to get some and bring it back. After he gets the ammo, he comes upon another soldier making coffee. He sits down and enjoys a cup. Meanwhile, his buddies run out of ammunition and have to make a run for it. They jump into another fox hole, only to find themselves surrounded by a gang of Japanese soldiers with bayonets. One of them is killed and the other escapes wounded. The third soldier returns to find his friend dead.
This incident shows how deadly it can be--for others in this case--when a man lacks self-control.
2. As night falls later that day, the Americans find themselves needing to hold their position with very few soldiers. The commanding officer tells Stryker (the John Wayne character) to spread out his men and make sure they don't smoke or talk or do anything that would give away their position. Otherwise, the Japanese will be able to find out how vulnerable they are and will attack.
During the night, someone starts calling out the name of the American soldiers, as if he were lying wounded on the battlefield. The soldier stationed with Stryker says he is going to go out and see who it is, but Stryker tells him not to because it could be a trap. The soldier tells Stryker that the only way he's going to stop him is to kill him--and Stryker immediately aims a rifle at his face. The soldier accuses Stryker of being inhuman. The scene ends with the voice from the battlefield calling out Stryker's name and the camera focused on Stryker'sface--and you can see that he is in agony. He knows that he needs to stay where he is even if the cry for help is real.
Stryker is not being inhuman here: he is exercising self-restraint--the very quality that the first man lacked. He knows that if he does not stay put, it may well lead to the death of his companions and the failure of the entire mission. Just as the first man's lack of restraint led to the death of his friend, Stryker's ability to exercise restraint keeps his friends safe.
Multiculturalism
America’s greatest heroes
I hear the strangest things from my American Government students about how horrible the United States is. They learned all of this in their history classes. This used to perplex me, until I disovered the reason why, which is multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is a kind of fun-house mirror, by which all of the faults of western civilization and, in particular, the United States are exaggerated or, if need be, invented. All of its good points are minimuzed, ignored, or (if possible) seen as faults. At the same time, the faults of all other cultures and civilizations are ignored and their good points are exaggerated.
The result is a kind of leveling or, to be more precise, a lowering of western civilization and the United States in particular below the level of all other cultures and civilizations. If one assumes that the truth of the matter is that western civilization is, in fact, the highest achievement of human history and the United States its greatest success story (at least for the present), then what multiculturalism offers is an inversion of reality.
This approach to education explains the present emphasis on the evils of slavery in the US, the way in which the colonists treated American Indians, the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, the Vietnam War, etc. It also explains the sermons of Jeremiah Wright, in which the US government is the villain that invents AIDs, introduces drugs into the African-American community, and is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (In the last case, notice how Americans are the bad guys and the terrorists who committed the attacks are simply ignored--or seen as bringing upon us our just deserts). It may also explain why some people oppose every tactic the US has used to defend itself since 9/11 (including the Iraq war) and ignore or minimize the evil of the terrorists who are still trying to destroy us.
There are, in my opinion, two purposes behind the project of multiculturalism. First, it is an attempt to destory Christianity (and if one were to speak spiritually, one might describe it as a rebellion against Christ), because western civilization and especially its American expression is essentially Christian civilization. Second, it is a kind of Marxist effort to raise up those who are not successful by tearing down those who are. In the latter case, it is at bottom just an expression of envy.
The danger of multiculturalism is that its goal is to destroy the greatest achievement of western civilization and the US, which is liberty. It is this liberty that has made it possible for so many people to pursue happiness in peace, without being harmed by others (either by government or by other citizens). To destroy it would be to leave us in the misery and vulnerability that mankind has experienced in most places and times throughout human history.
In order to prevent the destruction of liberty, we need to speak the truth about history and current events and (as Christians) live lives that bring honor to Christ and pray that God will help others to see the truth.
I hear the strangest things from my American Government students about how horrible the United States is. They learned all of this in their history classes. This used to perplex me, until I disovered the reason why, which is multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is a kind of fun-house mirror, by which all of the faults of western civilization and, in particular, the United States are exaggerated or, if need be, invented. All of its good points are minimuzed, ignored, or (if possible) seen as faults. At the same time, the faults of all other cultures and civilizations are ignored and their good points are exaggerated.
The result is a kind of leveling or, to be more precise, a lowering of western civilization and the United States in particular below the level of all other cultures and civilizations. If one assumes that the truth of the matter is that western civilization is, in fact, the highest achievement of human history and the United States its greatest success story (at least for the present), then what multiculturalism offers is an inversion of reality.
This approach to education explains the present emphasis on the evils of slavery in the US, the way in which the colonists treated American Indians, the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, the Vietnam War, etc. It also explains the sermons of Jeremiah Wright, in which the US government is the villain that invents AIDs, introduces drugs into the African-American community, and is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (In the last case, notice how Americans are the bad guys and the terrorists who committed the attacks are simply ignored--or seen as bringing upon us our just deserts). It may also explain why some people oppose every tactic the US has used to defend itself since 9/11 (including the Iraq war) and ignore or minimize the evil of the terrorists who are still trying to destroy us.
There are, in my opinion, two purposes behind the project of multiculturalism. First, it is an attempt to destory Christianity (and if one were to speak spiritually, one might describe it as a rebellion against Christ), because western civilization and especially its American expression is essentially Christian civilization. Second, it is a kind of Marxist effort to raise up those who are not successful by tearing down those who are. In the latter case, it is at bottom just an expression of envy.
The danger of multiculturalism is that its goal is to destroy the greatest achievement of western civilization and the US, which is liberty. It is this liberty that has made it possible for so many people to pursue happiness in peace, without being harmed by others (either by government or by other citizens). To destroy it would be to leave us in the misery and vulnerability that mankind has experienced in most places and times throughout human history.
In order to prevent the destruction of liberty, we need to speak the truth about history and current events and (as Christians) live lives that bring honor to Christ and pray that God will help others to see the truth.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Opinion Makers
In Federalist 67, Publius uses a strong word to describe the "devices...which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject" of the office of the president. That word is "wicked."
Why would he call these devices wicked? It is because he thinks that the ones who adopt these devices are deliberately deceiving the people for their own gain--and by so doing are placing in jeopardy the very lives, liberties, and properties of the people, which (in his opinion) depend on the adoption of the US Constitution.
To this willingness of some opinion-makers to deceive, add the vulnerability of the people to being deceived by such devices, as Hamilton describes it in a speech to the NY Ratifying Convention: "To deny that [the body of the people] are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise."
What you end up with is a potentially fatal weak spot in a country dedicated to liberty.
Why would he call these devices wicked? It is because he thinks that the ones who adopt these devices are deliberately deceiving the people for their own gain--and by so doing are placing in jeopardy the very lives, liberties, and properties of the people, which (in his opinion) depend on the adoption of the US Constitution.
To this willingness of some opinion-makers to deceive, add the vulnerability of the people to being deceived by such devices, as Hamilton describes it in a speech to the NY Ratifying Convention: "To deny that [the body of the people] are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise."
What you end up with is a potentially fatal weak spot in a country dedicated to liberty.
Music
My wife and I have noticed that our son John loves music. He has a couple of toys that play beautiful classical music when he pushes a button and it is very touching to see all of the joy and delight that lights up his face as he dances to the melody.
This morning I played a rock song on the computer and my wife and I danced, but my son looked scared and moved away from the computer. That may be an indication that there is something wrong with that kind of music.
I said to my wife, "I once heard that rock music corrupts the soul and I'm not sure that's wrong." She agreed.
This morning I played a rock song on the computer and my wife and I danced, but my son looked scared and moved away from the computer. That may be an indication that there is something wrong with that kind of music.
I said to my wife, "I once heard that rock music corrupts the soul and I'm not sure that's wrong." She agreed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
