Dialogue 1: Marxist Estrangement

A short explanation before the post... There is an established history of public conversations. In the heyday of English literary work, authors would debate through newspaper editorials. Many correspondences are published posthumously. Now, my brother and I, living well after the newspaper, and not quite dead yet, would like to publish discussions. Not necessarily because we consider ourselves intelligent enough to listen to, but more likely because it is through discussion that two or more can come to a common understanding of the truth. Further, through discussion ideas are honed and sharpened, made more poignant and brought into better light. Meanings are clearer. And so, I present the first of, perhaps, many.

=======================================

Ambrose: You
I have a question that I wanted to discuss with you
Marxism

Sam Ignes: Umm...'kay.

Ambrose: Marx states that factory labor leads to four kinds of alienation in the worker: (1) alienation from the object, because he works on physical material which he doesn't own; (2) alienation from his human nature (or species being, as Marx terms it), because it is part of man's essential being to labor and shape the earth after his own image, while factory labor places man in service to his labor, working in order to subsist; (3) alienation from himself, because to separate him from physical belongings and his own nature is to separate him from himself, so that he loses what is human and lives to satisfy his animal functions; and (4) alienates him from other men, since this economic state of being places him in adversity (competition) with his fellow man, and especially his employer.
That was what we read - that's my condensation of an essay that Marx wrote
The question is, given that factory labor alienates man in the above way, describe an economic system which does not alienate the laborer.
Any thoughts?

Sam Ignes: ...capitalistic redistribution?

Ambrose: Flesh that out.
Define "capitalistic"

Sam Ignes: I'll do it using your bullet-points above, then, I guess.

Ambrose: Probably the best way.

Sam Ignes: Capitalism is an economic system fueled by the competitive nature of man, embodied in a constant rise in GDP and quality of service.
Redistribution is a means of eliminating homelessness and extreme poverty by providing welfare only to people who have no housing or job for a period of time until they can acquire aforementioned things.
Both are severely more complex than that, but those should satisfy as base definitions.

Ambrose: Ok

Sam Ignes: Okay, I'm gonna have to go out of order of your bullet-points for this to make sense.

Ambrose: That's fine
That's the order that Marx uses for his argument, but you can go out of order for yours.

Sam Ignes: 'Kay
(2) This system allows all men to work in a creative fashion because it creates constant need in every field of labor; the applied interest of men promotes their intuitive ability, thus shaping the world.
(3) The prevention of complete poverty and constant improvement of average quality of life allows man to be "in touch" the the physical and his belongings.
...I don't think you explained (1) in very full detail, since if whatever man works on causes him to be distanced from ALL objects, he's pretty much screwed.

Ambrose: it's not the fact that he's working on an object, it's that he's giving his labor, or his life - there are only so many hours in his life, and he's pouring those hours into an object which he cannot keep, control, or use. Monetary payment doesn't compensate, since he's missing his own life.
You can't buy back life.

Sam Ignes: Marx's first three points rely entirely upon Man's inability to acquire objects.
The fourth is brought about by man's good nature in prosperity.


Ambrose: Keep in mind, Sam, that Marx is talking about mid-1800's London, where there is no general prosperity. The working class lived in slums much worse than poor America. Every member of a household worked at least 12 hours a day in the most unsafe environment for pay which was barely enough to feed them.
Labor is still like this - sweat shops in Southeast Asia come to mind.

Sam Ignes: So?
I wasn't told to make Southeast Asia into a haven in a day.
I was told to describe an economic system.
Moral standards should be applied to personal experience, not vice-versa.

Ambrose: Well, keep in mind that in a capitalistic system, where by definition (as given by Adam Smith), the motivation for increasing the general wealth of society is personal gain, the most profit is made by paying the factory workers least; it will always be, if not standard policy, at least moral temptation to pay workers just enough to keep them alive.

Sam Ignes: Ingenuity promotes automation.

Ambrose: I know, it's a moral problem, but moral problems exist. We're not talking about an ideal society that exists on paper, we're talking about an actual society.
Do you mean that automation will eventually take the place of human workers?

Sam Ignes: On paper, yes.
...oh, wait, in real life, too.

Ambrose: ah
Are you saying that we have replaced manual labor with automation?

Sam Ignes: Yup.

Ambrose: Sam.
We live in a global economy.
Sweatshops in Asia and south America, which produce a large mass of our goods, are part of our economy.
Those sweatshops consist of people working for less than 10% of American minimum wage, in extremely unsafe conditions.
Automation has not replaced manual labor.

Sam Ignes: I didn't say it has.
I said it would.
Sorry, my communication failure. :P

Ambrose: Ok

Sam Ignes: Basically, Marx makes the case in a nutshell that "labor" reduces humanity in some way.
As a solution to the problem he himself creates, one must eliminate labor.
So, on paper, I did. :D
Shit just got reeeeeeeal.

Ambrose: No, he makes the case that working for a pitiful wage in bad conditions (which scenario is created by a capitalist economy) alienates man from those four things.
It doesn't completely take them away, it just alienates them.

Sam Ignes: Okay.
I didn't say the world IS the way I described.
I was painting an economic system that would solve the problem presented.
Mind you, I didn't provide a step-by-step on how any part of our global economy could get there; for that, I'd have to get more personal.

Ambrose: Right, I don't need a step-by-step plan, I just want a description of a system.

Sam Ignes: Yyyyyup.

Ambrose: But I think you're missing a bit of what Marx is saying, which is possibly due to my bad explanation
It's not the work itself which alienates man from himself, his nature, the object, and other men
It's the conditions under which man works in a capitalist, factory society.

Ambrose: Pivotal things about that condition which lead to that separation: he labors on that which is not his, he is living in abject poverty, and he is forced to work in order to sustain his physical existence.
So, instead of creating out of his own energy under his own directive, he is forced to use his creative faculty in a non-creative manner.
No match-stick factory worker takes pride in his work. "He's lighting that cigarette with one of my company's matches! I take pride in that!" No factory worker would ever think, say, or believe that.

Sam Ignes: And the way I boiled that down in order to change it was to say that the workers had to adapt the economy, and so I made the economy in such a way that it adapted to the workers.
Man can become interested in his work by creating a need for it and the means to achieve it.

Ambrose: Just because it fills an economic need in society does not mean that it fills a need in man's core being.

Sam Ignes: But Marx demands that man's core being is downtrodden by the economy because of the position it places men in.

Ambrose: right.
that is what Marx says.
Let me illustrate it with an example.
Picture your training and bike racing. It's work - you put in your hours intending to reap a benefit in your racing. When you win a race, you have a sense of fulfillment and joy, right? (along with the adrenaline rush)

Sam Ignes: And podium girls, yeah.

Ambrose: You don't get podium girls. You're not that good.
Alright. Suppose you took those same training hours, and instead of working toward your own end in your bike racing career, you powered a generator in a factory for minimum wage. No racing, no podium girls, just $7.45 an hour. Even if that filled a societal need, and you got paid enough to support yourself, it wouldn't be that same exhilarating feeling, would it?
That's the difference between alienating and non-alienating labor, which I think Marx is trying to point out.
It may not be the best example, but it shows what I mean.

Sam Ignes: So, man must be fulfilled by his work in order to not be alienated?

Ambrose: Basically.
That's what I posit, anyway.
It's kind of a mash between the Platonic idea that every man naturally wants to do a certain kind of work (the sword smith is born to be a sword smith, the farmer born to be a farmer, etc.) and a Chestertonian distributist idea, where each man is financially independent, and large corporations don't exist.

Sam Ignes: There's nothing wrong with large corporations.
There is something wrong with oppressive corporations.

Ambrose: Well, let me explain a bit here.

Sam Ignes: Please do! <3

Ambrose: Large corporations originate in the division of labor (division of labor = instead of one man making one thing, 10 men each make one part of that one thing in an assembly line). Dividing labor allows them to produce more quickly, and thus gain an excess - more than what society around them needs. They can thus sell for profit.
That's how capitalism originated back in the 1700s.
In order to have those 10 people (or 1000s of people, depending on the company), you need a large workforce of people whose only job is to do that one tiny piece of making the whole product.
This is only possible in a large corporation - a single-employee small business _by definition_ cannot divide labor, because he simply doesn't have enough men.

Sam Ignes: However, a single-person business cannot apply a service to a large population.
e.g. phone service.

Ambrose: Interesting argument.

Sam Ignes: Hold up a sec

Ambrose: But phone service is something that a government could - and possibly should - handle very well.

Sam Ignes: What I mean to put forth is that dividing labor (government is labor, too) is not necessarily bad; if research and development is labor, and labor shouldn't be divided, then there wouldn't be much R&D getting done.

Ambrose: Research (actually scientific work being done by scientists) is not necessarily unfulfilling, like Marx would posit that factory work is.
Sam Ignes: But you're using "labor" synonymously with "factory work."

Ambrose: Yeah. Research isn't "labor," it's qualitatively different than tightening the same screw on each product that rolls past on a conveyor belt for 12 hours.

Sam Ignes: Then how do you eliminate the need for jobs such as tightening the same nut and bolt 8 hours a day?

Ambrose: By denying that it's a need.
It's only a "need" in a society where the final end is material gain - you have to make a surplus, in order to sell enough to make a profit.

Sam Ignes: So, how do you change the "end" of society from material gain?

Ambrose: Remember, this isn't a step-by-step plan, it's a description of a society.
Suppose you had a society where people lived in groups or villages, not gigantic super-urban cities with millions of people.
Those people could support themselves materially - they could grown their own food, built their own tools, organize themselves in their own affairs...
Granted, they would not have material excess.
But you don't need to have material excess - that's why it's called excess or surplus.
The important thing is that each person could build and work on his own things, selling them or keeping them as he saw fit.

Why is it that...

Why do we Americans demand money, cars, food, bonuses, health care, jobs, or whatever from our government? Why is it that a vast portion (41.71% source) of our national expenditure is devoted to taking money from some people and giving it to others, for whatever purpose (social security, medicare, medicaid...). The government has taken upon itself to take our money from us and distribute it wherever it sees fit - to national parks, to health care, to job security and promotion, to all of the things it spends on. Why exactly is that the government's job? Who decided that, if someone was going to give, it had to be the government? Why should the government be the solution? Besides violating the principle of subsidiarity (under which the smallest, most local authority possible handles the problem), it takes away from our free will. How? Let me show you.

First, I would like to make it clear that whatever money the government spends comes from one of two places. Either it is tax money, or it is interest on foreign loans (trade tariffs, for the sake of this argument, can be regarded as taxes, since the price of the tariff is tacked on top of the price we pay for the goods...). Now, since our nation is so far in debt, I don't think interest on foreign loans is going to get us much revenue. Therefore, any money that the government spends (really) comes out of our own pockets. Thus, any money that the government spends to benefit our lives is our own money! In other words, all of the social security, medicare, and projects that Uncle Sam funds is, by its nature, someone else deciding what is best to do with the profit you worked hard to earn. This clearly showcases one of the core principles of small-government philosophy: whenever a government acts, it necessarily performs this action instead of and at the expense of the people.

Let's elaborate on this idea. First, consider that first part - the government acts instead of the individual. Suppose, for the hypothetical sake of argument, that the government pays for medical care for the elderly (What's that? They already do?). If the government pays for their health care, then no one else can supply that portion of helping their elderly parents. If Grandma is in the hospital at the government's expense, you don't personally have the capacity to give her the gift of paying for it yourself. Health care, living expenses, and public property restoration are all a finite pie. If the government takes all the slices, the individual's opportunity for charity and generosity gets eaten up. And, if we can believe Plato and his Republic, and the purpose of a government is to help foster a virtuous public, then the less opportunity a citizen has to act charity the less the government fulfills its purpose. In terms of true, habituated virtue, "Let me do it for you" is completely opposed to personal growth.

Second, consider the fact that the government acts at the expense of the individual. The government is not some magical sorcerer who gives from an inexhaustible store of enchanted goodies. The government consists of the ruling body, in its laws, elected officials, and available capital. The government is only so rich as its people, and can give nothing of its own. Like I posited above, the government's only income is our tax. Whatever the government gives to the community, it first takes from the community. The government doesn't give, it necessarily, by its nature redistributes. Any government plan that puts money into development or care takes whatever funds it needs from the people. Why would you elect someone who would promise to pay for your education with government money? Government money is a contradiction in terms - that money is and always has been owned by the people. Why would you elect a candidate who promises to give more money to the schools? That money is coming from your pocket, anyway. And, since you know your own, personal needs better than the government does, why do you let them do it for you?

Having established this principle, lets return to our discussion. How does government spending take away from our free will? Let us, for the sake of this argument, assume that "free will" means the ability to say yes or no internally (as differentiated from "freedom," which, according to this discussion might have some qualifications). Now, as stated above, more government spending means less American citizen spending on two counts - one, the government already pays for stuff so we can't, and two, it uses our money to do it so we have less. One of those options clearly takes away from our freedom - if the government spends, then we can't do that spending. That option is no longer there. The way is shut. However, the second, taking our money, removes freedom in a subtler way. Whether for good or ill, we live in a capitalist society, where your abilities as an individual depend upon your affluence and wealth. I am not free to take my children to Disney World if I can't pay for it. This is just a fact. So, if the government takes a good chunk of my paycheck, it is not at my disposal, and my kids will have to hope I can come up with a low-budget vacation plan.

Most importantly, as the government takes our money, they also take the decisions we make with that money. If I decided to spend my money on the health care of my children, then I am virtuous. But if Big Brother decides that I, in my ignorance and lack of virtue, am not capable of making those decisions, and makes them himself, then we have a problem. The fact that the American who earns a modest $40,000 a year pays 15% of that to the government means that the government deigns to revoke that American's right to decide where his hard-earned $6,000 goes. What if he wants to support a local business and stimulate the economy by eating out? He can't with that $6,000. What if he wants to make a charitable donation to a soup kitchen or Boy Scout troop? He can't with that $6,000. What if he wants to pay for his mother's quadruple bypass in gratitude for his upbringing? He can't with that $6,000. And if a man can't do with his own work what he pleases, what can he do? Well, I guess he can scrape by on a tight budget and scrap the charity he would have done otherwise.

This is the crux of the matter: if the government steals from me my ability to do good, and to fail to do good is to lose part of my humanity, then the government is taking from me my humanity. Plain and simple. In days of old, man was constantly in danger of becoming bestial and giving in to his base desires. That is no longer the case. Under the government nanny-state, where no good OR ill action is possible, we become machines working for the cause of whichever president stands behind the control panel. If we are lucky, he will be benevolent in his rule, and seek to at least help us lead contented lives of drudgery. But why should he? He doesn't owe any responsibility to robots deprived of their free will and human dignity.

Guilty 'til proven innocent!

I come across a very common and rather instantaneous fallacy whenever someone asks me why I am concerned over one thing or another. Of course, some instances like homosexuality and abortion occur the most often (thank you, public school system!), but it's a common mistake in moral thinking.

Assumption: What I do/want/think/etc. is morally acceptable until proven otherwise.

I can hear the alarm bells going off in your head, already! But go ahead and think for a bit how you may have done this at any time in the recent past. At any given time you ever said, "can you prove me wrong?" or anything similar to that inquiry, you were likely committing this very logical flaw!

Going back to my original example, whenever someone asks me what my issue is with something, I'll normally give some broad, generality, such as, "throwing rotten tomatoes at prisoners is wrong because it wastes perfectly good rotten tomatoes." Irony far, far aside, in virtually any given case I will be immediately met with the response, "so? You still can't prove it wrong!" Now, understand, this is a rather weak example. There is no prerequisite such as presenting an original example on my part or even the institution of a valid topic. For total srs, someone could just approach me and say out of the blue, "what's wrong with giving food to old, starving men?"

So, I'll start at the bare basics of my rebuttal. For starters, moral acceptance can be rated on a scale of good vs. bad. I'll use the assumption that good is a positive existence and bad is the lack thereof. This means that in the original assumption, there is inherently good in whatever action/thought/etc. Now, even though this is not physics, it is quite fair for me to employ the law of conservation of energy: matter cannot be created or destroyed. No, I am not speaking on the constancy of the amount of matter in the observable universe, I am speaking in terms of the assumption of the existence of good in any given action/thought/etc.

What I mean to embellish is that you cannot assume the existence of good because it is not necessarily there. It is an unknown factor in the case of the assumption. Bring about the fact that a scale has "markers" on it. Just as your average metric ruler has centimeter notches in it, so does a moral "ruler" (giving me candy is on the top, fyi). When I introduce the moral acceptance of giving food to old, hungry men I am placing this act somewhere on that ruler when I truly have no knowledge of the scale itself.

Ultimately, my point is that you cannot assume the positive existence of good in an act/thought/etc. because we cannot immediately measure it. Allow me to assume that acts must be compared to one another based upon the known moral value of one.

Also, I have decided the unit of moral value shall be 2/3" washers.

Conclusion: actions/thoughts/etc. are not inherently morally acceptable and their moral acceptance must be proven.

Yes, my roundabout approach is rather sloppy, but I'm not here to connect syllogisms.

~Samuel

Best part of running a blog:

Recanting. Guess what: I take it all back. Well, not all of it. Just THIS post. Aristotle has a way of convincing people, I guess... I suggest all of you read the Politics. Very worth while.

A man naturally finds a woman, and "the two become one flesh" (coughhackspluttercough) and kids come out. A family. Naturally. Therefore, it is at least natural to man that he exist in a family. Further, Little House on the Prairie families need to work almost twenty-four hours a day in order to subsist on the fruits (or vegetables) of their labor, leaving no time for leisure, which, as Joseph Pieper points out in Leisure, the Basis of Culture, is the thing which defines a man. Our job - our financial output - our productivity - is not the thing which defines us and gives us purpose as human beings. Big surprise. In fact, our true meaning for existence is union with God - also known as contemplation or prayer. Now, of course, productivity is necessary for life, but caring for half of us - just our bodies, not our souls - cannot fulfill us as human beings, body and soul. Therefore, families join together - again naturally - into communities in order to secure the good of the entire human being - body and soul. These communities require laws for their own good and the good of every individual, and therefore these laws are natural ("All things have a nature, and flourish only in accordance with that nature." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). As a result, man is social (or, in other words, exists and participates in a political environment) naturally.

Aristotle FTW.

~Ambrose

Why read journalists' opinions on the Pope's motives...

...when you can just read the Pope himself?

(If you want more where that came from, just go here and look through the selections on the left.)

Besides, you gotta admit its cool that he thinks the complaints about needing to be more internet-savvy are worth looking into. Given the way the media can't seem to handle the rise of the blogosphere, it'd be awfully funny if someday the journalists were behind the Pope in the workings of the information age. (Not likely to happen, I know, but you have to admit the mere possibility is ticklishly hilarious.)

Should you find Papa Ben's letter too hard to follow for some reason, I reccomend Fr. Z's comments over those of most journalists. (On the other hand, you probably won't find the combox arguments over the hairy details as helpful; just so you can't say I didn't warn you.)

So go on, be an honest examiner and read His Holiness for yourself.

Orthodox Rabbi Supports Papa Ben

Fr. Z has the scoop. I tried to repost it but I couldn't find an easy way to copy his formatting (emphases and [comments], ya know) and was too lazy to reproduce it "by hand" (so to speak) and didn't want you to miss seeing this with his highlights. So just go over there and read it, now. It's worth it, trust me.

Real thought?

This is an interesting proposal. All it's missing is the noise in the bushes argument -- although it includes mention of the point of said argument, that unless we really know that the fetus/embryo/whatever is not human we cannot risk murder. We could very well say it's not worth our time to speculate on something that we don't think is going to happen. However, there are two problems with that: one, that just because we shouldn't expect good things such as conversion doesn't mean we should despair of them either, and two, that there are some things about the hypothetical situation that may very well be relevant to other, some real, situations. What interests me specifically is the possible reaction should Obama take up the idea.

My question, then, is this: is there a way he could present it that genuinely would stimulate real thought, and niether be just dismissed by conservatives as being wishy-washy intellectual fakery nor be simply taken by liberals as a call to uphold flimsy rationalization as justification?

Why.

The human person is essentially a question: why. I don't mean a human's physical body - humans are not in essence physical matter. A human's essence, their defining trait, that which seperates them from all other beings, is a question.

Aristotle states that man is the "rational animal". While man is an animal, and has physical matter, he is more than that. He is "rational". He is seperated from the animals in that he can think - he has self knowledge, and he can link things in his mind. He is rational. He can ask questions, and answer them on his own. Man is not different from the animals because he is "smarter"; he is different because man can function on a spiritual level - a rational level.

Man is also different from all the spiritual beings (angels, demons, God...) in more ways than just having a physical body. Man can ask a question. This may seem odd, but think of it this way. God is omniscient. He knows everything, and sees the full course of his actions and everybody else's actions before any of them acts. Thus, he cannot ask a question (intellectually - he can, of course, form words into a question). There is nothing that he doesn't know. Similarly, angels see the end result of their actions plainly - Satan knew that he would be thrust into hell even before he fell (thus he cannot repent). Humans, alone among the spiritual beings, does not know the end result; man does not know, and thus can and must ask questions. This is sort of a physical trait displaying itself on the spiritual level. Because of time and matter, out minds simply can't know beforehand, and we end up having to ask questions.

So if man is divided from the animals by rationalism, and from spiritual beings by physical matter, then the point of connection between these two (the question) is man's essence. His defining point, what makes him man, is questions.

However, not just any question. One question in particular is man's. Why. Animals, because they do not have self knowledge, cannot see motive (the answer to "why"). They can ask "where is the food?" or perhaps "where is the pain coming from?" but they cannot ask "why don't I have any food?" or "why am I being hurt?" They can recognize things - pain, hunger - but cannot see the reason. Man can. He can see that the man who tortures him and deprives him of food wants information out of him.

This also differentiates him from angels and God. Both of them see the whole matter through clearly, since they are out of time. Satan knew that his actions would lead directly to Hell. He saw that distancing himself from God intellecutally would lead him to be distanced from God by being thrown into Hell. Satan didn't ask why. Man, however, misses the connection and has to ask. His mind doesn't automatically do that, and thus he asks a question.

So, man's essential trait is "why". Men ask "why" since they are two years old. Any parents will back up this claim - most children ask questions like "why is the sky blue?" until they are blue in the face. However, man is also himself a question, waiting to be asked.

"Why?" very much describes the relationship between God and man. God created man "to know, love, and serve Him" (Baltimore Catechism #1). Now, man doesn't see his purpose straight from the beginning. He asks a question, an essential question: "Why am I here?" You can see this question written all over the media and explorative art. Man asks his creator what his purpose is, and the creator responds, "I AM." From this question-answer, man moves forward to the loving and serving, which can be described as the natural reaction to the question-answer. If God is, and we are because God is, the loving and serving make sense. Man loves his life; he ought to also love the source of his life. Man serves himself; he ought to also serve the source of himself.

So, if man's essential nature is the questions "why", why is "why" so absent in our culture? In our fast-paced, work-a-day week, there is no time for deep theological question-answer. We get up every morning, drink our coffee from our automatic coffee makers, drive to work in our automobiles, use our word-processors for eight or nine hours, and then drive back home, eat a meal, and go to bed. The question "why" is gone. Or at least, we only get shallow "why". The deepest essence of our human nature is gone.

Why is this? It is uncomfortable to ask "why", because after we know the answer, an action is required. After we know God, we must love Him and serve Him. There is no middle ground. "Take up your cross and follow Me" is not an easy command to follow - for death on a cross is a very unpleasant thought in any human mind. Thus, in order to keep these questions out of our minds, so that we can live in a world of shallow, material pleasures, we confine ourselves to the shallow "why" and ignore our true human nature. We don't want to be human.

The only reasonable move is to begin, as a culture, to ask "why?" If we simply asked "why?" and moved rationally to the answer, then the implications of the answer would be realized. We'd have to love; we'd have to serve. So, instead of losing twenty pounds or being nicer, why don't we try this new year to become more human - to ask why, and find the answer.

Truce!

No, I'm not suing for peace with Obama, our new President Elect, as if I think we've lost and have only some kind of surrender as hope for survival. I'm not here to engage in hyperbole about the situation Catholics are in with the government being run by modern liberals. Assessing the situation of faithful Catholics and the action they should take in this situation is something I hope to do thoroughly soon, but I have a different object in mind at the moment, a particular detail that I think I've found more or less how to address.

I am prompted rather by reading some discussion at the diary of a former atheist formerly known as Et Tu?, where a post on dehumanization sparked some response from some pro-choice people (among lots of response from readers in general). I made the realization suddenly that the stereotyping that occurs in national politics, along with the focus on legal aspects and away from the whole issue, was causing a good deal of misunderstanding about what pro-lifers and many, perhaps most, of pro-choicers actually believe.

I'm also aware that though we must be honest about the acts we believe are evil it is very tricky business to persuade people, whose intrinsic dignity we must respect, who have commited or supported those acts or even who merely are in disagreement with us concerning the morality of the acts or, in more cases than we realize, concerning the approach we should take to overcoming them. Some have objected to the saying "hate the sin, love the sinner" because one cannot love the person as a sinner, so a less simplistic approach to the matter seems necessary to achieve the needed balance of judgement of evil and upholding of the person's intrinsic good in spite of the evil they may have done or may be inclined to do or support. It seems to me that we must simultaneously condemn the evil act, help the conscience of the individual to judge it truly without forcing the judgement on them, and uphold the person as basically good and worth forgiving (although forgiveness does not itself revoke all consequences or punishment) while nonetheless bringing them to see that to be good they must reject this evil act. I know, very paradoxical.

Put more practically but still oriented toward truth, we need to bring people to the truth about evil but actually accusing them tends to turn them off and shut them away instead.

The point I mean to get at here is that I want to set forth ground rules by which honest discussion between people of different opinions on abortion can actually happen, minimizing the damage both of flawed preconceptions of the other's position and of speaking against the other himself or herself in ones right zeal to speak against the evil.

In short, I propose a "truce" of sorts to the culture war as wrongful dogfights, such as will enable us to better achieve the real purpose of the so-called culture war: that of bringing people fully to the truth and to respect for life.

The first draft of my proposed peace treaty, or whatever you wish to think of it as (maybe a social contract?), specifically on the matter of abortion is as follows. I would appreciate feedback on it and suggestions for names for it and for some of the more reference-needing particulars within it. I will attempt to keep this briefer than most arguments themselves, but will make sure it covers the grounds thoroughly so that it may proportionally save time for those in debate because of the already established grounds of discussion.


[draft one]

Note on the Organization of these Terms

Due to the lengthy nature of a thorough grounding such as this, these terms have been divided into three sections.

Section A is about the use of the terms themselves. Section B contains general principles of the terms. Section C contains particular details.

It is hoped that this will aid clarity and efficiency of use of these terms; for example, because the idea of the general terms and of how to use these terms should for the most part become as universal as the terms themselves so that in specific copies they may be glanced over and only the particulars need be checked in detail; further specifics of how this division should be helpful will be mentioned in the explanations in Section A.

Section A

1) The following guidelines or terms of discussion may be referenced and agreed to before discussion of abortion between those who appear to largely disagree. If these grounds are agreed upon, they shall be held to as much as possible. If these grounds are not agreed upon in the beginning, they cannot be used as a phariseeical afterthought. The discussors will have to take what they can get without them if they are not agreed upon. Should they be agreed upon part way through a discussion, any points prior in the same discussion that may be violations of these grounds are to be considered out of the discussion.

1a) As these guidelines may be improved or elaborated on by individuals, those using them as grounds in their discussion should ensure, to whatever extent is reasonable, that they are referencing a copy or set of these guidelines that will not change.

1b) Specific changes made to details of the guidelines may also be agreed upon on a case-by-case basis within the discussion and separate from the guidelines referenced.

1c) It is to the benefit of those using these terms, as per the Note in their beginning, to lean toward minimal modification of the first two Sections.

1d) If in the course of a consideration of point 2 below an offense that can be clearly shown against Section B is not covered in Section C, it may be for the best to make an addition to Section C for said offence.

2) If during the discussion someone feels that these grounds have been violated, they may respectfully point out so with the following conditions.

2a) The accused shall be given a chance to either acknowledge his violation and apologize or else to defend by reasonable explanation why his apparent breach is not so but rather an honest assessment.

2b) Should the retraction and apology or explanation in defense by the accused be reasonably adequate, the matter is to be left behind unless it come up again of its own accord.

2c) Should the offended decide that the apology or defense is not reasonable, or should none be made, the offended is free to consider the discussion under these terms closed.

2d) It is to be noted that more concern should be given to violations that can be pointed out through Section C, the particulars, than only through Section B, the very general principles, due to the difficult nature of arguing in vague fuzzy terms. However, see point 1d.

3) Violations of these terms that occured in other discussions, rather than having occured in the same discussion and been dealt with as outlined in point 2, are not to be used as ad hominem bludgeons. Bad arguments that would have been such violations had these terms been in effect in the discussions in which they took place are similarly to be overlooked for the sake of sticking to the issue at hand rather than the character of others involved.

3a) It may come to pass that one uses or proposes these terms who has at times spoken less hospitably, has said or done such as would have been a violation of them. They may have had many different reasons for doing so, e.g. aiming their comments or points to be made at those who already agree that abortionists are practically baby-killers, brevity (it is so much faster to just apply labels, isn't it?) or simply having failed in patience. As such, and given that one purpose of these terms is to prevent human failings from getting in the way of attempts to aid understanding of truth, even these are to be overlooked in the interest of sticking to the issue itself.

Section B

4) Those engaged in this discussion shall strive not to make assumptions about the position or character of the other(s).

5) The actions or words of those not engaged in discussion are not to be projected onto those engaged in it. Guilt by association is off limits.

6) The words given to you should be understood as they are meant by the one who speaks them to you.

6a) Note that this point does not prohibit discussion of the accuracy of the words used in debate, nor of how they could be misconstrued.

7) Should there be confusion or lack of understanding during the debate/discussion, all involved should endeavor to step back and explain what they are trying to say and make sure the other(s) understand as much before moving on to what they think of what the other(s) say or questioning whether that ought logically lead to another thing.

8) A position or explanation from either side shall not be dismissed as ridiculous, stupid, etc. Rather an explanation of why it does not follow or why it should not be held shall be given, with all previous points put into effect in making sure the point one is critiquing is properly understood and said understanding agreed upon by both before the critique is made.

9) It is to be mutually acknowledged that both sides have real reason to fear oppression. On the one hand, there are anti-abortion radicals (although far off from the love that drives the real pro-life movement) who have enacted violence against abortionists, threatened women who procure abortions, etc., and even besides that many women turn to abortion out of great need that has to be addressed somehow. On the other, despite the argument that "nobody is forcing you to have an abortion," it has happened that some public schools have favored teaching the benefits of abortion without allowing speakers against it, and governments have been known to try to regulate alternatives to public school, and furthermore it has happened that under modern medicinal insurance payment for help other than a practice believed by some to be immoral has been denied, financially forcing some to choose between evil and probable economic ruin, and there has long been controversy concerning those in medical practice who do not wish to participate in what they believe to be grave evil. All this is just for example.

9a) Whether one position or another has more reason to fear oppression is not a helpful argument, and shall not be allowed to distract from more important points.

9b) It is preferable rather to discuss ways that those who hold mutually opposing positions can help prevent the other from being oppressed or harmed.

10) Those engaged in discussion shall endeavor to reference human beings in terms that describe them as such and avoid degrading them with name-calling or euphemisms.

Section C

11) As per points 4, 5 and 6, those who call themselves pro-choice are not to be called pro-abortion without first establishing that they would agree to being called such; they may, after all, really believe simply that it should not be an illegal choice even if they do not believe it is a good choice.

12) Similarly, those who call themselves pro-life are not to be called anti-abortion without first establishing that they would agree to being called such; for the most part pro-life people oppose abortion because of their belief about the right to life.

13) As per point 10, an abortion practitioner is not to be derided as a baby-killer, nor are pro-choice politicians, etc.

14) As per point 10, what is formed by a mother and father inside the mother's womb is to be called a baby unless it can be proven not to be or unless the distinction between stages of development and not the baby itself is under discussion.

15) As per point 4 (also 5 and 6), when confronted with a pro-choice person a pro-life person shall endeavor to find out what this person thinks of abortion morally, whether they believe in endeavoring to minimize it through methods other than legal action, why they believe so, etc.

16) Similarly, it shall not be assumed that a pro-life person would have everyone who ever was not stringently pro-life jailed for life, or any other such nonsense, but rather it is to be respectfully asked how they would deal with the issue legally.

17) As per points 4 and 5, the motives of pro-choice people are to be understood as what they say they are, not assumed to be greed, hatred of children, etc.

18) As per points 4 and 5, the motives of pro-life people shall be understood as those they explain, not assumed to be out of some kind of sex-controlling cult craziness or some other such unrealistic, even if less extreme, view.

19) Should a pro-choice person raise concerns about women who have abortions, women for whom abortion seems necessary for whatever reason, etc., how as a society to deal with these concerns is to be addressed.

20) Similarly, should a pro-life person raise concerns such as are in point 9 or about the harm done to women or families by abortion, these concerns are to be considered honestly and measures to deal with them are to be discussed.


[end]

Suggestions? Criticisms (fair ones that is)? Anything incomprehensible? Any way to shorten long parts without leaving anything out?