tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post5557856399286161877..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Prudential JudgementDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-1471054531365743942012-10-12T00:42:21.763-04:002012-10-12T00:42:21.763-04:00Abortion is an intrinsic evil and gravely so. Howe...Abortion is an intrinsic evil and gravely so. However, in politics there is no magic "on/off" switch to stop abortion or to reduce it's incidence. There are imperfect choices on both sides of the political aisle and there are people who lobby the other way. <br /><br />What to do in order to address this is actually a matter of "prudential judgment." There is a seamless garment of moral principles that we are bound to, but we may disagree legitimately (as long as we stay within certain parameters) on how to achieve those goals.<br /><br />In terms of pro-life policy, we honestly do not know the effectiveness of policies to save lives. Take for instance, 24 hour waiting periods, in which we hope that women in deliberating will choose life. It sounds good on paper. But in practice, Planned Parenthood may (and does) collect a "down payment" in advanced, almost always insuring that the pregnant mother will return for the abortion.<br /><br />We push a number of abortion restrictions -- parental notification, waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, bans on certain abortion procedures, and on public funding of abortions -- and it is reasonable to assume these initiatives have helped somewhat reduce abortions. But do we truly know how much? Have we put into place mechanisms to attempt to "measure" success? No, we have not. We do not know what laws or policies effect each individual decision of women deliberating over an abortion because each decision is necessary.<br /><br />Do we know how much the Family and Medical Leave Act, CHIP and coverage for pregnant women, WIC, and other policies might help reduce the abortion rate? Such policies are usually supported by the Democratic Party and opposed (or in line for a budget cut) by the Republican Party? Does medical care and social assistance disincentivize abortions? It may in some cases and in some it won't. But how is this any different than most typical pro-life proposals? And if the policies do not do these things, could pro-lifers attempt to structure such programs or new programs so that they might? What if the policies championed by the other side actually, indirectly, reduce the incidence of abortion? Many would think so. Many would think not. <br /><br />Not every position is equally true or morally equivalent, sure. But these are examples of how pro-life Catholics may disagree over the best ways to restrict and/or reduce the incidence of abortion. <br /><br />SCOTUS from the legal point of view is unbelievably important in restricting and ending the lawful practice of abortion. However, the strategy of electing certain candidates to appoint anti-Roe justices is not necessarily seen as a perfect strategy. Other pro-life Catholics could, within reason (not as a cover for pro-aborts) think a stronger both/and emphasis is needed because the current strategy may or may not be working. <br /><br />Let's say Romney get's to replace Kennedy and get's that elusive fifth justice (after political hell, to be certain because the Senate will likely be under Dem control). But even then therein lies a problem: a case must come before SCOTUS regarding abortion and SCOTUS takes cases by discretion and SIX (not FIVE) justices must agree to hear it. If there is a minority of pro-Roe justices afraid that hearing the case will change abortion jurisprudence, they can band together and decline, until such a time as we're playing defense on pro-life justices again. <br /><br />So a pro-life Catholic may reasonably disagree on the most sound strategy to stop the practice of abortion (though they can't think it should not be illegal, for instance.) This, of course, must be distinguished from Catholics with a heavily secular mentality attempting to give cover to pro-abortion Democrats. <br /><br />But the point is "prudential judgment" applies to every moral judgment.<br />Eric Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-77311287468993363832012-10-12T00:19:22.383-04:002012-10-12T00:19:22.383-04:00Great post.
Two things I feel should be added, h...Great post. <br /><br />Two things I feel should be added, however.<br /><br />First, one criticism of Ryan's budget does not simply disagree with his approach, but his priorities. Note that the bishops keep insisting that a circle of protection be made around the poor and those who face the most economic insecurity. As prudence is the use of right reason in pursuit of the good it involves in politics not just the best means or ways to accomplish a task or goal, but a correct understanding of the interaction of moral principles and their hierarchy. Therefore, not only do we seek proper means of attaining just goals, there also must correct moral prioritizing. <br /><br />From this, one could reasonably make the argument that the Ryan budget (the latest version) has questionable moral priorities: it moves to cut quickly at social services that assist the most economic vulnerable at this time and does not do the same first - nor at all - for our military industrial complex (not to be mistaken for legitimate national defense) which is neither justifiable nor a higher moral concern. <br /><br />So, if you spend more on updating and modernizing weapons, spending more per capita than any other nation on military spending, maintaining a navy that is larger than the next ten combine, having hundreds and hundreds of bases around the world, etc., but instead of trimming here first and as deep as one may before moving to cut spending/reform to achieve savings -- that admittedly must be made and stragetically -- on programs that assist the poor and vulnerable then naturally there is improper moral prioritizing and thus a flawed prudential judgment.<br />Therefore, while not every item in the Ryan budget is immoral or flawed, one can reasonably maintain that it's approach altogether reflects poor prudential judgments for aforementioned reasons. <br />Secondly, the (always made) distinction between "intrinsic evils" and "prudential judgments" is a false one. The notion of "intrinsic evil" is a moral theological notion that is basically conceptual. <br /><br />"Intrinsically evil" denotes that the object of a moral act prohibits such action from ever being morally licit regardless of circumstance, e.g. to kill an innocent person. This is to be distinguished from acts where the object of the act is "neutral," as it were, and the act, if evil, would be so for reasons of contingencies or circumstance. Neither of these distinctions immediately denote whether the evil itself is grave or not. For instance, lying is intrinsically evil, but it is not necessarily a grave evil. <br /><br />The way these distinctions are mis-used and mis-stated politically leads to a lot of moral confusion. There are arbitrary lists of "non-negotiable" (intrinsic) evils and they are juxtaposted to "prudential judgments," which in these cases, people really mean either questions where people can debate how to apply moral principles or evils that are so for extrinsic reasons, such as war. <br /><br />But the problem, of course, is evil is evil. Simply because, say, a war is not always evil does not mean it is never evil; if a war is not just, it is immoral, and therefore ought not be supported. This would be as binding on one's conscience, given this judgment, than that it is immoral to kill unborn children. So this distinction or way of understanding moral theology is terribly flawed. <br /><br />This is even demonstrated more so by this: how to deal with these situations necessarily involves a "prudential judgment." (More below).Eric Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-84439975570737406462012-10-11T17:34:10.186-04:002012-10-11T17:34:10.186-04:00Excellent discussion! It's good to see someone...Excellent discussion! It's good to see someone make the point.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-89671282605122129382012-10-11T15:29:59.869-04:002012-10-11T15:29:59.869-04:00An excellent post!An excellent post!<i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.com