Comments on: What’s Wrong with Pacifism: It Confuses Contingency with Utility http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/ Ministry. Education. Philosophy. Apologetics. Ethics. Culture. Theology. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:55:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Hauerwas in the CTR: A, umm, Responsive Reading » God. Real. Right. http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-308 Hauerwas in the CTR: A, umm, Responsive Reading » God. Real. Right. Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:10:50 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-308 [...] it effectively embodies the morally irresponsible and testimony-destroying theory of pacifism. (The blog post linked from this sentence makes the point that legitimate opposition to pacifism does ....) Paragraph 2: Hauerwas claims the American view of war as sacrifice makes it culturally infeasible [...] [...] it effectively embodies the morally irresponsible and testimony-destroying theory of pacifism. (The blog post linked from this sentence makes the point that legitimate opposition to pacifism does ….) Paragraph 2: Hauerwas claims the American view of war as sacrifice makes it culturally infeasible [...]

]]> By: Christians and Violence; Cal Thomas and the Dallas Morning News » God. Real. Right. http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-156 Christians and Violence; Cal Thomas and the Dallas Morning News » God. Real. Right. Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:22:51 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-156 [...] neighbors’ burglars with his shotgun. Is such violence ever acceptable for Christians? One small part of my position on pacifism is here. Also, Cal Thomas discusses why the Dallas Morning News dropped his column, how Obama’s [...] [...] neighbors’ burglars with his shotgun. Is such violence ever acceptable for Christians? One small part of my position on pacifism is here. Also, Cal Thomas discusses why the Dallas Morning News dropped his column, how Obama’s [...]

]]> By: barry http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-137 barry Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:37:03 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-137 Bryan, glad you inquire! "Dictate... obligated" is a bit ambiguous for this reason. "Does the knowledge that genocide is happening somewhere impose an obligation on a nation to intervene and stop the genocide?" Unequivocally YES. Proverbs 24:11-12 is a good example of why. (11 If from delivering those taken to death, and those slipping to the slaughter--you keep back; 12 When you say, `Look, we did not know this.' Is not the Ponderer of hearts the One who understands? And the Keeper of your soul the One who knows? And He has rendered to man according to his work.) But, "does the knowledge of genocide dictate going to war?" Sometimes. There are prima facie obligations (those which are due at face value in every circumstance) and there are actual obligations (the things we must actually fulfill in order to be just in a particular circumstance). If we had a one-man army, we would not have to send that one man to oppose the Rwandan genocide. We might feel better, and he would die nobly, but we could choose a better, more imposing, route for "delivering those delivered unto death." On the other hand, suppose we know some of our people will die if we stop that genocide, even a greater number than would die in the genocide, but we do have the ability to stop it, then our moral obligation would still be to stop the genocide. It's like asking if I should step between a man and the wife he is beating--even if I know the man is going to kill me and then go back to beating his wife. I must still intervene. But if I have a way to do it which will more likely actualize the justice of punishment on him and deliverance of the wife, then I choose that route. The fact that I must act to the best of my ability regardless of the cost to me is unabated either way, though. That's a pretty muddled response due to brevity, so let me know if you'd like clarification or if you'd just like to express your disagreement. :) Bryan, glad you inquire! “Dictate… obligated” is a bit ambiguous for this reason. “Does the knowledge that genocide is happening somewhere impose an obligation on a nation to intervene and stop the genocide?” Unequivocally YES. Proverbs 24:11-12 is a good example of why. (11 If from delivering those taken to death, and those slipping to the slaughter–you keep back; 12 When you say, `Look, we did not know this.’ Is not the Ponderer of hearts the One who understands? And the Keeper of your soul the One who knows? And He has rendered to man according to his work.)
But, “does the knowledge of genocide dictate going to war?” Sometimes. There are prima facie obligations (those which are due at face value in every circumstance) and there are actual obligations (the things we must actually fulfill in order to be just in a particular circumstance). If we had a one-man army, we would not have to send that one man to oppose the Rwandan genocide. We might feel better, and he would die nobly, but we could choose a better, more imposing, route for “delivering those delivered unto death.” On the other hand, suppose we know some of our people will die if we stop that genocide, even a greater number than would die in the genocide, but we do have the ability to stop it, then our moral obligation would still be to stop the genocide.
It’s like asking if I should step between a man and the wife he is beating–even if I know the man is going to kill me and then go back to beating his wife. I must still intervene. But if I have a way to do it which will more likely actualize the justice of punishment on him and deliverance of the wife, then I choose that route. The fact that I must act to the best of my ability regardless of the cost to me is unabated either way, though.
That’s a pretty muddled response due to brevity, so let me know if you’d like clarification or if you’d just like to express your disagreement. :)

]]> By: Josh Mayfield http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Josh Mayfield Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:20:58 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-132 Dr. Creamer: Thank for the article. I look forward to the 'others' and then I may have further questions. Josh Dr. Creamer:

Thank for the article. I look forward to the ‘others’ and then I may have further questions.

Josh

]]> By: Bryan Young http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-131 Bryan Young Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:31:49 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-131 Hey Dr Creamer, I was wondering I may ask some questions. Do circumstances Like “Racial genocide” dictate a nation is obligated to go to war on behalf of the victims? Secondly should odds of wining the war go into a nation’s decision for declaring war or not declaring war? God Bless, Bryan Young (hopefully without to many grammar errors ) Hey Dr Creamer,

I was wondering I may ask some questions. Do circumstances Like “Racial genocide” dictate a nation is obligated to go to war on behalf of the victims? Secondly should odds of wining the war go into a nation’s decision for declaring war or not declaring war?

God Bless,
Bryan Young
(hopefully without to many grammar errors )

]]> By: barry http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-130 barry Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:50:22 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-130 You shouldn't be uncomfortable. You ask great questions and raise real issues. Other posts will address most of what you've mentioned here. But for the sake of timeliness and brevity here are a couple of things. Both justice-in-war and justice-after-war are significant contemporary issues. On justice-in-war, I suspect (I haven't fully articulated it yet) there will be two guiding standards: recuperation and retribution. Both are OT standards for enforcement as well. For instance, a thief had to pay back what he stole, doubled. Recuperation was only half the result of his injustice. Punishment was the other half. On the other question, it is unfortunate that there is a confusion of Christianity and patriotism. But it is equally unfortunate that for many Christians there is no practical application of Christianity to their national citizenship. The Christian's engagement in war, especially in a democracy, is not as an arms-bearing messenger from God. But as government-serving messenger from God. Not all governments do what is right. And no government does only what is right. But government is right. And Christian participation in government is not only as tolerable as Christian participation in engineering, but as necessary as Christian participation in feeding the hungry. As in everything where perfection is yet unrealized, where government does wrong, Christians should work to transform that government. (The means of that transformation are worms for another can!) But when a husband is ungodly, the wife does not have the prerogative to ignore or abandon him. By the way, I do not hold self-interested nationalism as a justification for war. That's a morally nihilistic approach at the end of the day. War is just when it is in the interest of others (as in a genocide intervention), in the interest of citizens' security, or in the interest of retributive justice. There's much more to say, but some will have to be in other posts. You're welcome to reply though. I'll respond as well. You shouldn’t be uncomfortable. You ask great questions and raise real issues.
Other posts will address most of what you’ve mentioned here. But for the sake of timeliness and brevity here are a couple of things.
Both justice-in-war and justice-after-war are significant contemporary issues. On justice-in-war, I suspect (I haven’t fully articulated it yet) there will be two guiding standards: recuperation and retribution. Both are OT standards for enforcement as well. For instance, a thief had to pay back what he stole, doubled. Recuperation was only half the result of his injustice. Punishment was the other half.
On the other question, it is unfortunate that there is a confusion of Christianity and patriotism. But it is equally unfortunate that for many Christians there is no practical application of Christianity to their national citizenship. The Christian’s engagement in war, especially in a democracy, is not as an arms-bearing messenger from God. But as government-serving messenger from God. Not all governments do what is right. And no government does only what is right. But government is right. And Christian participation in government is not only as tolerable as Christian participation in engineering, but as necessary as Christian participation in feeding the hungry.
As in everything where perfection is yet unrealized, where government does wrong, Christians should work to transform that government. (The means of that transformation are worms for another can!) But when a husband is ungodly, the wife does not have the prerogative to ignore or abandon him.
By the way, I do not hold self-interested nationalism as a justification for war. That’s a morally nihilistic approach at the end of the day. War is just when it is in the interest of others (as in a genocide intervention), in the interest of citizens’ security, or in the interest of retributive justice.
There’s much more to say, but some will have to be in other posts. You’re welcome to reply though. I’ll respond as well.

]]> By: Bill Watson http://barrycreamer.com/2008/06/27/whats-wrong-with-pacifism-it-confuses-contingency-with-utility/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Bill Watson Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:44:09 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=196#comment-129 I understand that most arguments against a just-war position degenerate into inconsistent or illogical reasoning... but what of the just-in-war issue? It is clear that violence cannot be catagorically rejected as evil. However, it is equally clear that few wars have been fought with just motives or means. What constitutes justification for a Christian to go to war? Deposing an evil dictator? Political or economic self-interest? The post-liberal "constantinian" critique must be answered. Has the Church conflated its own interests with those of the state beyond what is appropriate as a heavenly institution? Have we adopted a view of earthly citizenship that goes beyond submission... to actual identification with unjust interests of secular regimes? At what point do we decide that the self-interested militarism of the state would take us beyond our responsibility to submit to government in its administration of justice? I apologize for not presenting an argument... I am uncomfortable in this debate for fear of overlooking something. I understand that most arguments against a just-war position degenerate into inconsistent or illogical reasoning… but what of the just-in-war issue? It is clear that violence cannot be catagorically rejected as evil. However, it is equally clear that few wars have been fought with just motives or means.

What constitutes justification for a Christian to go to war? Deposing an evil dictator? Political or economic self-interest?

The post-liberal “constantinian” critique must be answered. Has the Church conflated its own interests with those of the state beyond what is appropriate as a heavenly institution? Have we adopted a view of earthly citizenship that goes beyond submission… to actual identification with unjust interests of secular regimes?

At what point do we decide that the self-interested militarism of the state would take us beyond our responsibility to submit to government in its administration of justice?

I apologize for not presenting an argument… I am uncomfortable in this debate for fear of overlooking something.

]]>