CDXXXVII – Ride The Rails

I.

In a previous post I introduced an idea I want to expand on. To fully grok it may be a walk. Bear with me and we will make it together.

There are two important predicates. First is that the most important priority of life beyond all others by far is to get to heaven. Nothing even comes close. More on this in a second.

The second important predicate is that there is nothing we can do to hasten or delay Christs coming again, and the Eschaton. The day and the hour and the moment is set, in time and beyond time. And it is known only to God.

Here’s how the rest of this article will go. I’m going to expand on these predicates, I am going to explain how understanding them has helped me, I will answer some obvious objections, and then I’ll bring it all together and serve up the punchline. Here we go.

II.

The first predicate is that our top priority is to go to heaven. Why is this? By top priority I mean this is the consideration that should govern every aspect of our thinking. That’s what growth in virtue is all about— does this thought, word, or deed make me holier or less holy? If we govern every aspect of our lives by this standard then we become good people and we can be a little more confident of heaven.

Beyond that, all other concerns shrink to insignificance. Self mastery, stoicism, theyre all about not becoming depressed by a rotten world that is trying its best to make us rotten too. World events, bad news, good news, headline of the day—these are distractions on the journey, not landmarks. So keep your focus and keep your eyes on heaven.

Obvious objections to this predicate include things like, “oh, I should be a jerk to my family and friends and not care about them?” Or “I have a lot of things I need to worry about. I cant worry about heaven when I’m struggling to put food on the table” or “Yeah but the other team is gonna make your life miserable if they take control so in order to have a happy life you have to worry about winning this game”.

Valid concerns, all, and I have presented them with snide flippancy.

The first objection is concerned with how we treat people when focused on heaven. I repeat myself: every thought, word, and deed ought to be aimed at holiness. Holiness is not a license to be mean, degrading, disregarding of anybody. We ought to love our neighbors, even if they are big fat and stupid. A person who is mean, degrading, or disregarding and says they do so in the name of holiness is doubling their error by causing scandal and giving Catholics a bad reputation. If someone is doing this they are doing it wrong.

The second objection is concerned with how we handle obligations when focused on heaven. Similarly to the first objection, focusing on heaven is not a license to ignore or abandon our daily duties. In fact we ought to handle our daily duties with more vigor and enthusiasm because they are making us holy.

The third objection is concerned with how we handle the worldly games we set up for ourselves to cause trouble for each other. Politics, economics, culture wars, you name it. All of these are big distractions. Are you closer or farther from Heaven by participating in politics? It depends. Are you closer or farther from Heaven by investing? It depends. If the economy is good or bad, does that determine whether you get to heaven? No. If people like you or hate you, does that affect whether you go to heaven? Not really. These are Earth games for Earth people. We play heavenly games because we are an Easter people. None of this stuff matters in any meaningful, heavenly sense of the word.

Now, all of this is not to say that our daily concerns don’t matter in an earthly sense. Earthly things matter a great deal–we do need food and drink and raiment, but Christ says (badly paraphrased:) “Seek first the kingdom of heaven and all these will be added unto you.” In other words: Get your priorities straight. Heaven first, earthly concerns second.

III.

The second predicate is that we do not have the power by any means whatsoever to move the date and time of Christ’s return to earth by one moment. He is coming when He is coming. I can pray a lot, I can pray a little. My team can win, my team can lose. I can be successful and rich, I can be a pauper. Christ could find Faith on earth, or he could find evil having conquered it all. As far as we know, Christ is coming by the time you finish reading this sentence. Are you ready?

This attacks the same problem as the first predicate from the other direction. The first predicate says, “How can I govern my life in a way that is pleasing to God?” The second predicate says, “What influence do I have over God?” The answer to the first is to seek first the kingdom of heaven, the answer to the second is absolutely none. So the question upon hearing this is, why is [XYZ] so important to you?

You might answer with the first objection: “If Christ is going to come back when he comes back, regardless of the state of the world–what is the point in trying to make the world better?” If you are living according to the first predicate–conducting your life in a way that is prioritizing getting to Heaven–then you already are making the world better. Just by living that way.

What you might mean by this question is, “How can I make other people agree to make the world the way I think it should be,” and that is not the right way of thinking about it. You focus on you–getting yourself to heaven. Then worry about your family, your friends, your community, your parish. When you have everyone up to the Parish level on the boat and ready for the flood, you have done something extraordinary. I guarantee you can be in the holiest parish in the world and still have your work cut out for you.

So politics, economics, culture–these are child’s play. These are not even the best levers we have of making the world a better place. Concern yourself with yourself, and with those in your care and custody, and you will find your local sphere improving by tiny steps every day. If you are persistent at it, and don’t move away from home, then you will end up with multigenerational influence in setting the tone and culture for the area you live. And that’s without worrying about anyone else! Imagine if everyone took the same scrupulosity to their own souls!

The second objection to the second predicate is to ask, with all sincerity: “It is not good that we should be persecuted or suffer ills at the hands of others. Shouldn’t we want to stop that, even if it doesn’t move the Eschaton one jot?”

The answer is–yes, we should WANT to stop persecution and suffering ills at the hands of others. But we need to be perfectly candid and honest with ourselves about what tools we have at our disposal. The first is prayer, are we praying? The second is what I described above–are we working hard to make ourselves, and those in our care and custody ready for Heaven? Leave worrying about Caesar for the romans. The only King that matters to you is Christ the King. If the government decides tomorrow to persecute you, specifically–there is nothing you can do to stop that. You can do all the right things, sign all the right petitions, vote for the same party in every election, save your money responsibly from your very first job–you can do all those things, and still lose to one determinedly evil man. God doesn’t promise us success he promises us a home in heaven–IF we earn it.

IV.

So how have these predicates helped me? It’s helped me to endure sufferings big and small at the hands of others. Having a bad day? Offer it to God–it’s helping you to be Holy! Bad news on the TV? Pray for them! Help people who are suffering to be holy! Not getting what you want? Offer it to God! Pursuing the Kingdom of Heaven and having that in mind all the time really does affect how you experience the world. You will have more patience than you had before, for minor inconveniences and little sufferings. It’s also helped me to put everything in perspective: Christ is coming when he is coming, so I ought not get worked up about this election or that headline or this war or that travesty of justice. God will get the last laugh in all of those things. As long as I am not making any of those things worse, as long as I am doing what I can to make my little pocket of creation better, I can at least try to be ready for when Christ does come, or when Christ calls me home, whichever comes first.

V.

So what’s the punchline? The punchline is that we do not actually control events: we are riding life on rails.

If there’s war, there was ALWAYS going to be war, and it’s God’s design that there is war. It’s God’s design that we freely choose war. We cannot prevent it and we cannot hasten it. It begins and ends according to God’s will. If there is a pandemic, it begins and ends according to God’s will. If there is a depression, it begins and ends according to God’s will. Even our reaction to surprises is included by God in His master plan for life, the universe, and everything.

We are on a roller coaster. It has ups, it has downs. We laugh, we cheer, we scream. But we can’t get out. We just have to do our best with the time we have been given in our spot on the ride. And one day the ride will end, and we will look back and see how God designed it that way, and wonder how we ever lost our cool at things not going the way we wished. We are riding the rails of life. It’s not a choose-your-own-adventure–there is only one adventure. We are in it. There is no alternative universe, there is no other outcome. This is the life we have been given. Live in it! Live for Christ in it! And see how much less all those distractions outside the ride matter, when we learn to experience the ride well.

AMDG

CDV – Tyranny of Belief, Part 2

This originally began life as an addendum to a comment I reposted, but I decided I wanted to expand on it more so it gets its own article.

---

You wouldn’t hold a belief you intentionally thought was bad. No one believes that being wasteful with ones money is a good behavior. The common belief is that being financially prudent is a good thing for the long term. You and I might disagree on what financial prudence looks like–I might be willing to splurge on sports tickets, while you might consider that a luxury–but in generally we both agree that we ought to save more than we spend and be good financial stewards for our households.

If someone is being flagrantly wasteful with their money, you would not suggest that that is a perfectly acceptable alternative to being frugal. You would more than likely think that person is irresponsible. You think that person is irresponsible because they are behaving in a way that is contrary with your belief about money, even if they are not behaving in a way that is contrary with their own belief about money. That is because there is something subjectively desirable about Financial Prudence, and the thing that is desirable is that it is objectively better to be financially prudent than to not be.

That financial prudence is subjectively desirable does not mean that it is a subjective choice. That is to say–preferring financial prudence to imprudence is not the same choice as preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla. The thing that makes financial prudence desirable is that it is objectively better because it taps into an exercise of virtue. Virtue is objectively good, objective goods are desirable, desire is a subjective working of the mind. If desire were an objective working of the mind, then all people would be prudent because it would be obvious that it is better. It is NOT obvious, and financially irresponsible people are rampant.

Let’s bring this back around. If someone close to me were being financially irresponsible, it is more likely that I would tell them that they need to learn about financial prudence because this financial irresponsibility is destructive. It is unlikely that I would tell them that they have an odd set of preferred choices and I don’t want to impose my beliefs about financial prudence on them.

There’s a simpler way to put this.

If something is good, it is good for everyone, and not just you. If you subjectively believe something is good, it ought to be because you think it is good for everyone. If you subjectively believe something is good only for you and not for everyone, it is worth evaluating why that is. If you think financial prudence is good, it should be because you think there is an objective character about financial prudence that is beneficial for society as a whole. Which also means if someone is behaving contrary to that, the reason we correct them is not just because their behavior is destructive to them, but because their behavior is destructive to society as a whole.

AMDG

CCCXCIV – The Antidefinition of Liberalism

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity sound like nice things—why shouldn’t we want them?

In my previous article I just showed why Liberals are not really as high minded and egalitarian as they say they are. It is natural to all human societies to be concerned about ones neighbors, to have censorship, to limit freedoms. Liberalism says these things are bad, and instead Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are the ideals and a Liberal society is ordered to maximize these things.

The truth hits in two blows. First, that Liberal societies do indeed engage in oppression, discrimination, and censorship, and drape themselves in idealism to mask the pragmatic truths of what they do. If you follow the stated ideals to their ultimate conclusion they are absurd on their face and no one would take them seriously. That people do take them seriously means that no one has thought deeply about them.

The second blow is thinking about what ideals ought to replace Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Liberty is obviously good, but the ideal of Liberty is obedience—liberty which has been yoked to Christ. Equality is obviously good, but the ideal of equality is equality before God, as one of infinite worth, of basic human dignity. Fraternity is obviously good, but the ideal of Fraternity is love of ones neighbor. In this sense, it would be a mistake to throw away these ideals and claim they are wholly evil. But the common element between their ideal deployment is a morality rooted in Christ.

In that sense, the ten commandments do more to stabilize society than Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity have ever done. If you are looking for first principles for a non Liberal society, maybe start there.

AMDG

CCCLXXI – An Idea-Stew About Truth, Scripture, And Morality

I’m really not sure how to arrange these ideas. The thought came to me in one of those moments of clarity before I fell asleep recently and I just wrote some notes down but haven’t really developed it much. This prelude is not important or interesting, more of an apology for what will be a haphazard introduction of some ideas and let’s see where it goes together.

The idea goes something like this: There is an objective truth out there, which we perceive dimly. We can perceive it dimly through natural reason, or certain parts can be illuminated through revealed truth. We can approach truth through Scripture–the common recourse of Sola Scriptura protestants–and we can also approach it through the Magisterium–which I use in the sense of the collective corpus of accepted doctrines and teachings of the Church. How all of these things relate to each other is the subject of this stew, so let’s put in some ingredients.

---

In my previous Apologia for the Authority of the Catholic Church, I essentially argue that the Church operates as a validation service for writers and thinkers. It investigates and draws connections between works and across time so that if you want to know if any given work is in conformity with the Church, all you need to do is check some ideas. If any of the ideas deviate from the accepted truths in the magisterium, you know it is not kosher and you can avoid it. If what you have to say is roughly the same as St. Cyprian, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Henry Newman, and Pope St. John Paul II, then you are probably on kosher footing. The Church does all the investigating and heavy lifting so we do not have to individually validate whether Cyprian, Aquinas, etc were on the right track.

The Church maintains this corpus of orthodox thought, and the reason it does this is because the Church is concerned with what things are true. There is an objective, definite, actual reality. We can perceive it dimly, and with the aid of the Church (and the Holy Spirit) can even come to know some absolute truths with absolute certainty. But from a philosophical level I think it’s fair to say that the whole truth is veiled right now. This is logical because if the truth were not veiled then we would have more agreement as to what things are true, but because it is not immediately obvious what things are true we need help figuring it out.

Imagine for a moment that the Absolute Truth is like the actual layout of roads in a city, and we find ourselves without our glasses, it’s foggy outside, and it’s nighttime. It can be hard to find our way. The Magisterium acts like binoculars, or night vision goggles, or a map–it is the sum of what we have been able to figure out about the city on our own and some parts of it have been revealed to us by the divine City Planner. We cannot see the whole truth but we can perceive what is around us and we can look at the map we have been given as a guide.

Doctrines and Dogmas represent known successful pathways through the city–things we know are true. And I don’t mean know in the fallible human sense–we know in the sense that we have been there and we know from experience that this route takes us to the grocery store and we can get there and back very easily. It’s the difference between knowing someone’s name and knowing them because you’ve been friends for 10 years–so Doctrines and Dogmas represent things we know–things that are true. These are given to us by the Church and are informed by her Magisterium. The Magisterium is what connects us to Truth and helps us to know it, and the Doctrines and Dogmas are what we have learned by using the Magisterium.

Doctrines and Dogmas in turn inform practices and beliefs. Practices and Beliefs are things we are fallibly confident are true. We are not required to pray the Rosary, but it is a practice which we have good reason to believe is helpful, and we have good experiences corroborating that belief. We are not required to believe God made the earth in 7 literal days, but it is ok to believe that.

I have painstakingly outlined what many consider to be obvious because I want to have a picture of how these different pieces relate to each other. Some veiled absolute truth feeds into the Magisterium, which adds in truths we reasoned into ourselves; this leads to doctrines and dogmas which codify certain things as truths; this leads to certain practices and beliefs that govern our conduct with respect to these doctrines and dogmas.

---

Let’s talk about scripture. Scripture has been on my mind recently, because I have been frustrated with the proper way to use it as a rhetorical device. If I were to offer an interpretation of scripture, there is no reason for you to accept my interpretation. The Church also does not offer specific interpretations–there is no one way to read the Bible–but scripture does contain within it certain truths. So where does Scripture fit into the framework I just described, and how can we use scripture as a rhetorical device?

Scripture is in a unique position–it both informs and is affirmed by the Magisterium. Let me put it this way: Scripture is illustrative, scripture is descriptive, scripture is prescriptive. Scripture is illustrative because it demonstrates certain truths, it shows us the means of our salvation, it tells the story of our faith from beginning to end. Scripture is Descriptive because it describes how we should conduct ourselves, how we should relate to God, how we should relate to our fellow man. Scripture is Prescriptive because it tells us what the solution to some problems are, especially via the Epistles where Paul both scolds and praises the nascent church for it’s respective faults and successes. These are the ways Scripture informs and feeds the Magisterium. But it is also affirmed by it, because when the Holy Writ was assembled into a single volume, a lot of work was done to affirm the historicity and authenticity and truth of the documents which were being considered.

Sola Scriptura protestants err in putting importance on Scripture in it’s illustrative, descriptive, and prescriptive properties, but disconnecting it from the Magisterium so there’s no outside body of truths for comparison–leaving scripture open to faulty interpretation.

Excursus: The secret to effective rhetorical use of scripture then is to connect scripture to the confirmed teachings of the Church, which support that interpretation or which are informed by that interpretation. Then the argument rests less on “this is what I think about scripture” and more on “this is what the Church teaches and this scripture affirms”. This is a much higher bar for the use of scripture, but ones arguments will be much clearer. The mistake I fall into repeatedly is quoting scripture and waxing philosophical on my own exegesis, and then stopping–thinking that’s enough. That’s never enough–we have to go the extra step.

---

Kristor and a.morphous have been having a dialogue in the comments at the Orthosphere and the way I have skimmed the argument, I would summarize one of the points of contention between them as “what is morality”. Many moderns mistakenly put morality at the level of “practice and belief” in the above framework, which is distantly illuminated by things which are true. a.morphous seems to believe that morality is a set of human constructed practices.

Morality is, by my dim understanding of the Church, a set of principles and values which are at the Magisterium level–they are things we know to be true because we can see them when we look through the lenses of the Church and we have walked the paths of morality enough to know that they are good paths and true. When I frequently refer to morality as “objective” I mean that the principles of morality rest on some transcendent quality and not on some human faculty. I do not know how to disabuse a.morphous of that notion but it is Kristor’s Sisyphus-like task to attempt to explain it to him, and he does so ably enough.

That’s all for now. I don’t know how to bring this to a fitting close so I’ll cut it abruptly here. Thank you for reading!

AMDG

CCCLI – Ritual Politics & The Peasant

Let’s talk about Ritual. Ritual here is a culturally important action which is bound up in ceremony, habit, and performance.

The important elements then are:

• Cultural Importance – things that are not culturally important are not preserved in ritual
• Ceremony – things that are rituals are surrounded with pomp and circumstance befitting a culturally important matter
• Periodicity – rituals are observed at prescribed times of year
• Performance – rituals are performative, proper observance of rituals are pleasing to the public and give the performer a pleasing association in the eyes of the public.

Liturgy is a description of Catholic rituals. Liturgy is culturally important because it pertains to worship of God; Liturgy is Ceremonial because it is surrounded with pomp and circumstance appropriate for worship; Liturgy is periodical because it happens every Sunday (every day even), with grander and more expansive liturgies reserved for grander holy days; Liturgy is performative because priests must perform the liturgy properly to afford proper worship to God, and a “good priest” is one who gives due respect to God through his liturgical performance.

This is a very antiseptic way of describing Catholic rituals, but you get the point, I hope.

There are political rituals as well. You know some of them as cliches: The Mayor holding big scissors at a ribbon cutting ceremony; the “breaking ground” ceremony where men in clean suits step on a shovel in a patch of pre-turned earth. Inaugurations of Presidents are highly ritualized political events.

There are two kinds of rituals, political or otherwise: Vain, and Purposeful rituals. Purposeful rituals fulfill some purpose and have some definite reason for existing. Mass is an act of worship, and so is a very purposeful ritual. The ritual helps to lend some universality to the Mass, so that one can go anywhere in the world and still recognize the elements of the Mass. Vain ritual has a purpose that satisfies the performer, rather than the people. The ribbon cutting ceremony is for the publicity of the Mayor, not for the edification of the people. He wishes to be seen doing things in public, so he obliges the ritual for his own purposes, not for any real public purpose.

In my previous article, I assert that voting is a ritual observance in America.

• It is culturally important that people vote, people call it a “civic duty”
• It is wrapped up in ceremony–the private act in the ballot box and the grand results parties for the politicians in question
• It is periodic, happens in November every year, with a major ritual happening every 2-4 years.
• It is performative, in that the act of voting has very little in the way of practical effect but it makes us feel good to wear an “I voted” sticker, and offers legitimacy to the politician who ends up winning the vote.

In the previous article, I leave essentially unanswered the question of why we should not vote, because I offered that politics is a tool at the disposal of the modern peasant.

In that article, we broke the practice of politics into three categories: Theory, Practice, and Ritual. Political practice involves two subdivisions: Governance and Plebiscite. Governance means the decision making actions of an individual in carrying out the duties required by the office he is elected into. Plebiscite means the decision making actions of a mass of people in answering questions put to them by the Governors. This includes questions such as “who should my successor be?” or “should we raise taxes in 10 years or now?” or “should moral degeneracy be legal or not?”

Let’s imagine ourselves as a peasant and consider all five aspects of politics then.

Ritual – A peasant must be aware of the rituals and customs associated with a people. This awareness helps him to cultivate his livelihood. But a peasant must be extremely selective about which rituals he participates in. The rituals we participate in reflects us and reflects what we consider important. It is impossible to cast a vote dispassionately–the ritual of voting inextricably ties us to the outcome of the vote, and even if we want to be dispassionate, we have not acted in a way that is dispassionate, and involvement in politics will become a priority to us. Likewise, participation in the Mass inextricably ties us to the worship of God. It is impossible to attend Mass, whether receiving Eucharist or not, and not become involved in Worship. Repeated involvement in the Mass will inevitably become a priority to us. Remember, a peasant has three projects: Spiritual, Personal, and Communal, in that order. If a given ritual helps the community but does not help the spirit, it should be avoided. Voting, then, should be avoided because it is a chiefly communal act but it is deleterious to our spirit.

Plebiscite – A peasant must be aware of the decisions being put up to plebiscite, but must not participate in it. A peasant’s chief focus should be his three projects, and the Plebiscite does not fall under his domain unless the peasant is in the position of authority. An authoritative peasant must be aware of the decisions too but has an obligation to exercise his authority in justice. It is exceedingly difficult for a peasant to remain a peasant when in a position of power in a liberal society; the exercises of authority are much blurrier. So while I would discourage a peasant from seeking power, a person in power may seek to do so with justice and a peasantly outlook, at which point he must simply be very careful.

Governance – A peasant typically would not even be aware of political acts of governance, but again supposing a peasant was in a position of authority, these acts are simpler and easier to understand how to carry them out in conformity with the spiritual project of the peasant. Authoritative peasants have a duty to act morally and for the custodial good of their subjects, and political acts of governance must be evaluated with this foremost in mind.

Theory – A peasant, regardless of position or project, has little need for political theory, unless such an education aids the pursuit of his projects. An authoritative peasant may need to understand how people think in masses and how to leverage that for the success of some just and good act of governance. It is exceedingly difficult but not impossible. A non-powerful peasant shouldn’t need to know the difference as long as he understands the duty to obey authority and act morally.

You see how democracy makes the life of a peasant more challenging? Politics introduces complications and obstacles to a simple, spiritual, peasantly life.

AMDG

CCXXIX – What is the Difference between Economics and a Gun?

I was on another philosophical sprint recently when Wood applied a much needed splash of reality to my enthusiasm. Following my article about Profit Motive, I wrote a snarky quick-take about “Evil Capitalists”. In that quick-take, I made the claim that “There is no economic system which is inherently good”. Wood’s counterargument was that Communism (as an economic system) is predicated on the the abrogation of private property, which Edward Feser has noted is contrary to Natural Law. A Communist system without that abrogation would cease to be communist, therefore a perfectly formed Catholic (PFC) could not operate a communist system without violating natural law.

This lines up with something I argued in my article on Divine Mercy that every action is either for or against God, everything can be reduced to some kind of Binary. This is what ZippyCatholic refers to in the article provided by Wood in the comments, that it is a fallacy that “formalisms and methods” can be metaphysically neutral, and is one of the lies of modernity.

So, with this preamble, lets tackle the question: What is the difference between Economics and a Gun?

---

A gun is neutral, because a gun exists apart from people who use guns. A gun can be used for good or evil, but only insofar as it’s operator is either good or evil. A gun thus takes on the character of it’s operator, after a fashion. A gun is evil in the hands of an evil man. A gun is good in the hands of a good man.

I have made the comparison between complex systems and tools because of the idea that a complex system is a kind of tool. Lets turn it into a gloss: Johnny uses the gun to protect his family. [Person A] uses [a tool] in order to [achieve some end]. The tool defines what ends are possible with that tool. “protect his family” is a valid end if the tool is a gun; “eat salad” is not a valid end if the tool is a gun, even if it is technically possible: that’s not what the gun is for.

If we suppose that “Capitalist systems” is a tool, then “public good” seems as valid as “public evil” as an end. The difference lies in the nature of the tool.

A gun is a discrete object that is both definite and actual. Capitalism is neither discrete, definite, nor actual as a thing. Capitalism does not exist apart from the people who are engaged in capitalist acts. Capitalism is almost better described as an emergent property of a barter market, rather than a thing unto itself. So saying that Johnny used Capitalist systems is as nonsensical as saying the gun voluntarily protected Johnnys family without any prompting from Johnny.

Capitalist Systems is more appropriately the subject of our gloss. If the gloss is [Person A] uses [a tool] in order to [achieve some end], then we can substitute in Capitalist Systems for Person A. The subject reduces the available tools, so we can say a tool available to Capitalist Systems is mortgage lending, and that reduces the available ends, so we can say the end of mortgage lending is to provide profit to a bank.

The tool is mortgage lending, mortgage lending is discrete, definite, and actual. Mortgage lending can be done in both Capitalist and communist systems. Mortgage lending can be performed by PFC’s.

Capitalist systems then are not inherently neutral, the reason they appeared that way is because they were in the wrong spot on my framework. Capitalist systems are a collection of agents, whose wills can be good or evil, and whose deeds follow the binary I described previously.

So with this in mind, the question I asked in my quick-take article was “Is there an economic system which is inherently good?” The answer is still no, but for a different reason. Capitalism, as a collection of capitalist agents, has no inherent property which is good or evil, the same way a person has no inherent property which is good or evil. A person makes good or evil choices, and capitalist agents can make good or evil choices, and so aggregated capitalist agents can effectuate good or evil outcomes through their collective actions.

The punchline still works too: If you condemn capitalism as evil, you are really condemning the culture that allows capitalist evil, which includes you. To change an evil culture requires doing non-evil acts, so I say again: Just don’t be evil.

AMDG

CLXXXVII – Afterthought on Conflicting Authority

Last time I wrote about Conflicting Authority I settled on the answer that one shouldn’t write about conflicting authority. But the thought hasn’t left my mind. The question is an intractable one: When two people differ, who is right?

I can illustrate by analogy. Let’s say the United States government declares wearing purple illegal. And lets say the government of Turkey declares wearing purple formally legal. An American and a Turk meet in a pub in London. One says, “Wearing purple is illegal,” while the other says “Wearing purple is legal.” Who is right?

I’ve established previously that Authority exists within context. In the subsequent article I argued that there is nothing disqualifying about either context, and this is why I argued that one shouldn’t dispute questions of authority.

JMSmith offered the additional distinction that there is personal authority and official authority. In his comment he described how a man who is appointed by whatever means to an office has the authority of that office; he had no authority before he got there and he takes no authority with him when he leaves–this is official authority. Personal authority is the example of, say, a meteorologist who has studied weather and has experience predicting weather suggesting it is going to rain, and the man at the bus-stop saying he thinks its going to rain–one has more personal authority on the subject than the other.

The most recent wrinkle that I thought about is the idea of the authorities to which we are subject. We are subject to official authorities–the American is subject to American law and thus subject to the illegality of wearing purple. We are not subject to personal authority, in the sense of the weatherman. I am subject to my Father because my father, the man, and the office of fatherhood, are inseparable. I am subject to the laws of America because the office of Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary are separate from the people who occupy those offices.

There is an additional question: I said I am subject to my father’s authority because my father the man is indistinguishable from the office of fatherhood. What if I reject my father’s authority? What if I leave home and refuse to accept his lawful rules?

There are several dimensions to this so lets try to break it down. Personal authority of the kind as the meteorologist can be accepted or rejected. This kind of authority I will call expertise. An expert speaks from a place of knowledge, but does not have the power to compel behavior. No one is subject to an expert. I am trying to think of a personal authority that is independent of some office that has subjects. Something like this concept can be found in reputation. A good reputation is reinforced by the testimony of your peers. Having a good reputation means you have some personal authority based on that. The element of requiring the appraisal of your peers means that this is a bottom-up concept. When popular acclaim holds you as an expert, you have the authority of an expert. Popular acclaim can also withhold or withdraw their approval. Without it, there can be no personal authority.

Said simpler: Personal authority is only valid to the extent that it is accepted by others. Said another way: Personal authority is given to us by our peers.

Official Authority of the kind as the Turkish Admiral cannot be accepted or rejected. Rather, it can be accepted or rejected, but we all know that a Turkish sailor is lawfully subject to the Turkish admiral, and if the sailor rejects the authority of the admiral he cannot expect to remain a sailor for very long. This is because the sailor is within the context over which the admiral has authority. When the sailor says “No way I’m not going to mop the floor”, or says “you can’t make me”–he is rejecting the personal authority of the admiral, which is given to him by the office. It is the official authority of the admiral which allows him to enforce his authority, and remove the sailor from the concerning context.

There are two points that I think are worth making here. First: All authority is given to us: Either by our peers or by our office. Second: I will steal words from Zippy: Accepting (official) authority is voluntary. It is also mandatory.

Lets dig a bit into that second point. Accepting official authority is voluntary. You and I have free will. We can choose to accept or reject anything we want. We can make any choice we want. The idea of choosing what is, say, good and just, is a moral choice. Moral choices are by definition voluntary and optional. They are also mandatory: We must choose to do what is good and just.

So accepting official authority is voluntary insofar as we have free will and are not obliged to accept authority, we can make the moral choice. Furthermore, we can choose whether or not to enter or remain in the context of any given authority. Accepting official authority is mandatory to the extent that we remain in that context and are bound by its mandates.

Do we have enough to settle the problem of conflicting authorities? When the American and the Turk meet in the pub, and the question of the legality of wearing purple arises, the resolution is that their present context determines the truth of the matter, and their home context determines the truth in their homes. In London, they are in the context of British authority, and may voluntarily choose to behave in accordance with British law, and must behave in accordance with British law.

The problem is not resolved though: I just said that to choose what is good and just is a moral choice, and that we may voluntarily make moral choices, and we must make moral choices. Everyone does behave in the way that they believe is good and just. If you do it, you think–at least, for a time–that whatever choices you’ve made are good. If you feel like you must repent then you acknowledge that you have made a morally ill choice. How do we differentiate between what different people consider morally good?

Let me know what you think. I’ve touched on a lot of areas with this post, there is more to come on this!

AMDG

(x) – Quick Thoughts on the NRA

I saw the latest news and it’s as good a time as any to note some quick thoughts about the NRA. If you would like a quick summary, skip to the bottom.

1. The NRA is not the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment will persist with or without the organization. Donating to the NRA is not the same as supporting the 2nd amendment. Donating to the NRA means you support the NRA, and if you happen to also support the second amendment then you support that too.
2. That point will be lost because the lawsuit filed in New York is an overtly political act at an overtly political time. But then, the NRA is an overtly political organization and as such is fair game in the political struggle that is this election year. It’s important to note that the New York AG has not filed a lawsuit against the 2nd Amendment, just against the NRA. The firestorm that is about to follow this will conflate the two.
3. Classical Liberals (of both the left and right varieties) do themselves a disservice by aligning their ideology with (or in opposition to) an organization. Organizations can be defeated and destroyed. Ideologies can only be argued and rebutted.
4. Morality transcends ideology, and moral judgement is the only thing with power to destroy ideology. Is an organization good? Do the individuals who run it, and other individuals who align with it, behave consistently with that value judgement? Answer those questions before you allocate dollars.

TL;DR: Who Cares?

CVI – Excursus on Data Collection

I want to follow up on a point I made in my previous article on Data Privacy. You can read it at the link, but in short, the premise is this:

Proponents of Facebook argue that if you want to protect your data, you should simply stop using Facebook. This is the equivalent of arguing that if you don’t want your data to be collected, you should stop generating data. I argue that this is a backwards way of looking at the world because it asserts that people who make good and moral choices must amend their choices when people who do not make good and moral choices obstruct their good and moral conduct.

I think for this we’re going to have to go back to discussions of Validity and Licity. Is Data Collection moral? Lets define some parameters, using Facebook as the example.

The means of Data Collection is the internet. The internet exists by a user entering and transmitting data, that data being routed through a server, so the server can differentiate what you’re looking for, and transmitting the results of your request back to you. Data production is inherent to the internet. Data Collection is required for the internet to function.

As I understand it, there are two options. Functional Data collection and Predictive data collection. Functional Data collection is where nothing is stored. I request a webpage, the server delivers that page, and then clears anything related to it. No data is stored because the request has been satisfied. Predictive data collection is where some information about me is stored on the server. A user in the United States has requested Facebook. There are x users in the United States who request Facebook, and they make up y% of all users who request Facebook. The user spent this much time, clicked on this many pages.

The difference between predictive and functional data is the intention of the owner of the webpage. The same data is required for both kinds, and most webpage owners want to learn the behaviors of their users in order to offer a differentiated product. I say again: The data produced through simply requesting a webpage is required in either case.

We have no moral dilemmas yet because this so far is a function of hosting a webpage and making it accessible to users. We do have an important question: Who owns the data that was produced and stored?

Ownership might be the wrong way of thinking about it. The Data describes the path taken to reach a webpage, and the owner of the webpage owns that report. It’s an output of paths taken by visitors. It’s like a restaurant with a map that lets you pin where you’re from. The patrons don’t own the pins.

So what if the restaurant started selling the information on the pins? One visitor was on vacation from Alaska, so Burlington Coat Factory might pay to be able to know that there is a customer in Alaska who needs a coat. If I was the Alaskan, I would be understandably a little upset that that little piece of information was sold to another company. It would be a good practice for the Restaurant to notify patrons that Pins that can be monetized, will be.

We could argue that we don’t know the full extent of what data is collected by companies like Facebook. Certainly the obvious things: If I upload photos or write messages, it would be like the restaurant taking a picture of it’s Alaskan customers and posting it on the wall, along with a post it note bearing a short message. It would make sense that, once posted, you have no claims to it, even if you don’t know the full extent of what data is collected.

So imagine the Restaurant has security footage, and from the security footage they can tell that you are wearing Nike brand shoes. Nike is very interested to know this and pays for any information the restaurant has on the incidence of Nike shoes in the restaurant. What if the restaurant used the security footage to sell to a company that uses the footage in an advertisement for joint cream?

We can differentiate these kinds of data collection as active and passive. Active collection is a positive emission of data which is captured and stored, like sticking a pin on the wall. Passive collection is gathering incidental data you can gather by observation. Active data collection is if I were to go to the street and ask people “where are you from?”; passive data collection would be noting the State on the license plates for vehicles in a parking lot. This is public information. But what if I started selling it?

I think that’s the core of the issue: Selling information which it is not clear is going to be sold. When I talk to people in the street, if I don’t tell them I am going to sell their answers, I am deceiving them intentionally. If I tell them I am going to sell their answers, they may decline to answer. If I go to the parking lot to collect data, how do I tell everyone I am recording and monetizing their license plates? What if they don’t see a sign? If I go and ask everyone, it’s suddenly active collection. If I put a barrier and notify them, there’s a consent, so it becomes active. People do not have all the information available with passive data collection, and cannot decide whether or not to opt out. This is where I say in the original article that people going about their business should not be admonished for parking in a lot and having their license plates noted and monetized.

Passive data collection I wouldn’t say rises to the level of deception, because there’s no exchange. Active data collection can be approved or declined, but Passive data collection denies users the choice. Yes, all the data is “public” or “out there” but monetizing that information changes the essential nature of the interaction.

So the question becomes: Do Data Collectors have a moral prerogative, if not a legal prerogative, to get consent for all monetized data collection?

If no, then Data Collectors have no obligation to their users. If Yes, then users ought to approve or deny the monetization of their data. Even if Data Collectors require consent to view their site, users have a choice. The consent ought to be explicit, otherwise it could be construed as deceptive. And consent should be every time you access a site, a reminder that you are being monetized, again: to avoid the perception of deception.

AMDG

XCI – A Collection of Ideas

I have a few article ideas in my queue that I’m sitting on. They are empty frames that need rigging to turn them into seaworthy ideas. Here’s a sampling of their draft titles:

• “Letting Go of Politics”
• “Apologetics of Indifference”
• “Citizenship”
• “Churchstate and Statechurch”

The common thread that links all of these is the idea of what things belong to the realm of politics (“render unto Caesar”), and what things belong to the realm of God. I planned to explore our relationship relative God, and was going to touch on some issues facing the Church right now. There’s a lot going on and I can’t claim to have answers but maybe I can help assemble a lot of disparate information in a coherent and useful way.

I saw an article that outlined “Rules for Catholic Radicals” and I think it’s a coherent way of approaching all the articles I’ve been stewing on above.

The basic premise is similar and congruent to the “Unite the Clans” concept. How can Catholics live and speak in a consistent way that allows us to effectuate the restoration we all desire?

So this article doesn’t get into any of that. I just want you to know that I’m thinking about this. Praise God that He has chosen us to live in such times!

AMDG