Friday, February 10, 2012

Rick Santorum and the liberal's Stochastic view of natural law

I have always said that knowing Latin is useful, but I never guessed it would prove helpful in discerning the meaning of the names of presidential candidates. In the present case, I'll simply note that Rick Santorum's last name means "of the holy ones." Not a bad qualification to have for the nation's highest office.

I also observe that the Greek word telos has now officially entered the nation's political lexicon through an article in the New York Times. The article is, of course, snooty (I almost typed "snotty," and that too would have been true) and condescending, as we have come to expect from the Times, not the mention much of the rest of the media.

Molly Worthen, the author of the article, discusses the basis for Santorum's views on marriage:
Santorum appeals to natural law, what he calls the Catholic Church’s “operating instructions for human beings.” 
“Human beings have a purpose, or ‘end,’ a telos,” Santorum writes in his book. According to the tradition of natural law, every part of our bodies has a telos too. In the case of our genitalia, that natural end is heterosexual sex for the purpose of procreation. It follows that marriage between a man and a woman “is fundamentally natural,” Santorum writes. “The promise of natural law is that we will be the happiest, and freest, when we follow the law built into our nature as men and women. For liberals, however, nature is too confining, and thus is the enemy of freedom.” Later on, he elaborates on his jaundiced view of freedom with a quotation from Edmund Burke: “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their appetites.”
Santorum's views here shouldn't be new to readers of this blog, since I have articulated the same position many times. It is simply the scholastic natural law tradition. The Times also correctly points out the true nature of Santorum's views on all social issues.
Santorum attacks gay rights and abortion not by spouting biblical verses or goading his audiences’ gut feelings, but by playing the medieval scholastic theologian and reasoning from first principles. There is no need to quote St. Paul to prove that homosexual sex is an affront to the natural order and same-sex marriage a detriment to civilization ...
Of course, a homosexual being an "affront to the natural order" is the Times' way of caricaturing this position. It is rather the homosexual's actions which are an affront to the natural order--and, since his own nature is a part of the natural order, his actions are just as much an affront to the homosexual himself.

The Times acknowledges that Santorum's case is logical:
Santorum is not a fundamentalist frothing at the mouth, screeching out biblical commands (he cites “Divine Providence” often in his writing, but rarely turns to scripture). When liberal students booed after he expressed his views on same-sex marriage at an event in New Hampshire, he did not shout them down, but tried to engage them in a philosophical discussion.

Each point that Santorum makes follows logically from the preceding premise. Along with Catholic public intellectuals like Robert George, a political theorist at Princeton, and the political commentator and the Lutheran minister-turned-Catholic theologian Richard John Neuhaus, Santorum embodies the renaissance of Catholic natural law in American political life—and the apotheosis of its seductive effect on conservative Protestant evangelicals.
But although is case is logical, it is premised on first principles. In other words, his world view is based on fundamental assumptions about reality, and this, says Worthen, is the problem:, and what makes Santorum so dangerous:
Natural law is a noble tradition that has shaped Western jurisprudence, but in the hands of conservative activists like Santorum it has become a dangerous cult of first principles. Santorum’s positions are perfectly logical if you accept his founding presuppositions — but, in his view, those presuppositions are not open to question. The genius of this emphasis on foundational assumptions is that if you can dismiss your opponent’s first principles, if you can accuse him of denying humanity’s “natural purpose,” you can claim to win the debate without ever considering the content of his argument. 
This tactic destroys the possibility for real political dialogue, since one need only engage with those who share one’s own presuppositions.
Having first principles--in other words, assumptions upon which your thinking is based--is a tactic? This is the first time I've ever heard anyone actually come out and say this. Is Worthen really saying you shouldn't have basic assumptions behind your view of the world? She doesn't have any herself?

If Santorum's view of the world is Scholastic, Worthen's is Stochastic. How can you have any belief about anything unless is is logical? And how can that logic have any effect unless it is based on premises which ultimately lead to assumptions that you take as self-evident? You might as well say that there can be chain hanging in the air not attached to anything.

This is just one indication of the bankruptcy of the modern world view: it attacks the self-evident assumptions of traditional thought and pretends it does not have assumptions of its own that it considers self-evident. Everyone else's assumptions are considered fair game but its own preposterous ones.

Santorum is one of the few Catholic politicians who actually seem to know what Catholic ethics actually teaches--and who is able to articulate it competently. Many of the others not only don't know what Catholic ethics teaches, but oppose it in practice.

The Times story gets Santorum right, even though its evaluation of him is entirely wrong. It condemns him for all the right reasons. The kind of liberals we have today--liberals whose political philosophy is premised on a denial of human nature--have every reason to fear someone like Santorum. Romney and Gingrich are both scandals to the establishment in their own way, although Romney redirects liberal premises to his own ends and Gingrich is still in the process, I think of internalizing the Catholic positions that have been percolating in Santorum's thought since he was young.

It is Santorum who stands for everything they oppose.

14 comments:

Art said...

Santorum is one of the few Catholic politicians who actually seem to know what Catholic ethics actually teaches

Not really. Like all politicians, he cherry-picks themes that he supposes will win him favor with a particular demographic.

Consider, for example, the contrast between his views on health care (that, in so many words, are "anything and everything Obama has done is wrong") and those of the Catholic Church:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

I would love to know Santorum's position regarding the recently-resurrected "kill-the-gays" law being proposed in Uganda. I'm willing to bet he isn't on the same page as the Catholic Church on that issue, either.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"liberals whose political philosophy is premised on a denial of human nature"

Since it is self-evident that the penis and vagina are used for a variety of purposes other than procreation, by both animals in nature and humans, who is it that is denying human nature by insisting they have one and only one use? Since we evolved to hunt and gather in Africa, are we bound by natural law to abandon civilization and go hunt on the Serengeti with sharpened sticks?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Where did I say the organs in question were only used for one and only one purpose? In fact, I believe we've had this discussion before.

Paul Schaeffer said...

Art,
I cannot profess to know Santorum's views as he sees them in relation to the Church's teachings, but I do invite you to consider a few points as well as to read the actual message the Pope gave back in 2010 that you referenced.
1. What the Pope says is not necessarily Catholic doctrine. I know this sounds strange with all the talk today about his "infallibility", but if you research the teaching of infallibility, you will find that it has been used very rarely--Benedict himself is very open to dialoguing about his positions which have not been defined in Church history as proved by his introduction to "Jesus of Nazareth".
2. In his message (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20101115_op-sanitari_en.html), the context makes it clear that he is talking about the chasm between those that have NO health care--not even access necessary FOOD or to flu relief medicine--and those in countries like ours that can see a medical professional for any small ache. The Pope's reference to "basic needs" in paragraph 4, as well as my next point make that clear. (By the way, the original Italian "l’accesso alle cure sanitarie primarie" makes clearer what "basic needs" means since that term has been overused today.)
3. Martin's main point in his blog seems to be directed towards the areas of marriage and sex. The Pope made it explicitly clear in the fifth-to-last paragraph that "basic health care" does NOT mean "reproductive health".
4. Looking at everything Santorum stands for, it doesn't seem like he is against providing basic health care (I could be wrong about this), he is just against HOW we went about it. It goes back to Martin's point about economics: we forget that there is a theoretical way to do things and an actual way. The key will be to find how to combine the two.

The Pope's call in that same message to live "justice, inseparable from charity" might just be what we need--if it is practicable on a nation-wide scale in a country where many leech off the federal government...

Looking forward to dialoguing with you more,
Paul

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Where did I say the organs in question were only used for one and only one purpose?"

You said: " In the case of our genitalia, that natural end is heterosexual sex for the purpose of procreation."

I guess then, that you meant to say "a" before "natural end", rather than "that." Since you acknowledge that genitalia have uses other than heterosexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation, where do you get off saying homosexual's actions are an affront to the natural order?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Since you acknowledge that genitalia have uses other than heterosexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation, where do you get off saying homosexual's actions are an affront to the natural order?

Because just because I think there is more than one purpose for a thing doesn't logically imply that I think a thing has any purpose whatsoever.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"just because I think there is more than one purpose for a thing doesn't logically imply that I think a thing has any purpose whatsoever."

Well, we aren't talking about any purpose whatsoever, we are talking about something almost all people use their genitalia for, which is providing sexual pleasure to themselves and their partners. Who are you to decide that the way homosexuals use their genitals for that purpose (which is identical to ways many heterosexuals use their genitals for pleasure) is an "affront to nature"?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Well, we aren't talking about any purpose whatsoever, we are talking about something almost all people use their genitalia for, which is providing sexual pleasure to themselves and their partners.

I was speaking a little loosely in saying that the final cause of sexual organs is procreation. That is their ultimate cause as a part of the sexual act. More immediately, you are right: the final cause of sexual organs is pleasure through sexual intercourse. What I should have said is that the final cause of the sexual act is procreation, the sexual organs (and their own final cause) being an essential part (obviously) of the act.

But your argument against my position is that what people in fact may use body parts for is determinative of what their natural purpose is. Maybe you could explain what that would be. In a cannibalistic society, is the natural purpose for the human flesh of those outside your tribe "what's for dinner"?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Who are you to decide that the way homosexuals use their genitals for that purpose (which is identical to ways many heterosexuals use their genitals for pleasure) is an "affront to nature"?

Well, the first answer is that I am a rational creation with an opinion.

Secondly, where did I say I was in a position to decide "the way homosexuals use their genitals"? Are you saying that because one person has a view of what is right and what is wrong that they are therefore "deciding" what someone else thinks or does?

You mean you can't have an opinion without automatically violating someone else's autonomy?

If so, what right do you have to get on my blog and disagree with me? According to your own reasoning, aren't you trying to decide what I think by expressing your opinion?

Your comment here is just mindless relativist nonsense which the people who voice it violate themselves on a regular basis.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

(which is identical to ways many heterosexuals use their genitals for pleasure)

No, sorry, it's not. If you think it is, then I would be happy to hear your argument showing that the rectum is a reproductive organ.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"In a cannibalistic society, is the natural purpose for the human flesh of those outside your tribe 'what's for dinner'"?

There is an obvious category difference between how you choose to use your own body and trying to use someone else's body.

"But your argument against my position is that what people in fact may use body parts for is determinative of what their natural purpose is."

Pretty much. If we let "nature" decide, shouldn't we be hunting game on the Serengeti with sharpened sticks while the women gather nuts and seeds?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"If so, what right do you have to get on my blog and disagree with me? According to your own reasoning, aren't you trying to decide what I think by expressing your opinion?

Your comment here is just mindless relativist nonsense which the people who voice it violate themselves on a regular basis."

You are right. What I should've said is who is Rick Santorum to think he can dictate to other people how they use their genitalia. Obviously you have the right to express your opinion, the real question is whether people like Santorum should have the power to enact and enforce laws which discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation because their acts are a supposed "affront" to nature.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"No, sorry, it's not. If you think it is, then I would be happy to hear your argument showing that the rectum is a reproductive organ."

You do know that heterosexuals can and do engage in anal sex, don't you?

Art said...

Hi Paul,

My comment was directed at the notion that Santorum in some fashion would be guided by edicts from Rome (infallible or otherwise - it doesn't really matter). The fact of the matter is that, if Santorum championed some of the proposals that come from the Vatican (things like government-sponsored or mandated universal health care, even if it is for basic health needs), he would be run out of Tea Party Town.

As I said, I disagree with Martin that Santorum is guided by some illusory Catholic ethic. Santorum is a politician first and foremost, and his positions regarding women's health are chosen carefully to curry favor with a particular segment of the Republican Party. He has weighed things and sees his path to glory paved by pandering to the extremists.