This new book by Christian Reus-Smit should be of interest to MoJers.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Moral Purpose of the State
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
Or, what we have here may be a failure to communicate. (Apologies to Cool Hand Luke.)
Robby's reference, in his post immediately below, to "the questions I [i.e., Robby George] have raised" worries me. In my book, I address, inter alia, a set of questions about the proper, and properly limited, role of religion in the politics and law of a liberal democracy. I had thought that Robby was interested in what I have to say in my book in response to the questions about religion in politics that I address there. But now I wonder: Whether the questions about religion in politics that I address in my book include the questions about religion in politics that Robby hopes to find addressed in the book, I do not know. That depends, of course, on precisely what questions Robby hopes to find addressed in my book. In any event, the refund offer is of the "no questions asked" variety!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
. . . or your money back!
Well, dear Michael, if you address the questions I've raised, I'm sure your answers will be clear. I just hope you address them (though judging from those glowing endorsements, I suppose I should consider 80 bucks a bargain whether you address them or not).
"I don't want to pay $80 and still be in the dark!" -- Robby George
Robby,
I no doubt have many, many problems, but clarity in articulating the positions I defend has not been one of them.
"Michael Perry is clearly one of our best and most prolific legal
scholars, and The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is one of his
finest books. Not the least strength of this volume is the way Perry
artfully performs what he commends to us. The thoughtful, challenging
arguments Perry offers teach us in the doing how Perry would have us
conduct our political arguments with one another." Milner S. Ball,
Harmon W. Caldwell Chair Emeritus in Constitutional Law, University of
Georgia
"This book is the capstone of Professor Perry's long and fruitful engagement with the difficult question of how religion should inform lawmaking in a liberal democracy. As a political liberal who belongs to a culturally conservative religion, I have found Professor Perry's work both intellectually enlightening and personally meaningful. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is an excellent work that forces one out of reflexive responses to religion in politics." Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University
"The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is a focused, original, and important contribution to the discussion of religion and liberal democracy. Perry focuses on two of the most controversial cases in current debate: abortion and same-sex unions; and he offers a theoretical account of liberal democracy that reframes the terms in which those debates should be conducted. The argument of the book is clear and compelling. --Robin W. Lovin, Cary M. Maguire University Professor of Ethics, Southern Methodist University
"This is vintage Michael Perry. He addresses a big, fundamental, and timely issue: What are the moral convictions that should govern legislation and policy in a liberal democracy? He discusses the topic with verve, clarity, wide scope, and astounding learning; and both formulates general rules and analyzes specific cases. If you have been unsettled by attacks over the past several decades on our form of government, The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is the book to read to quiet your doubts." Nicholas Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Yale University
Michael Perry has written a powerful defense of liberal democracy and human rights-a defense grounded on religious faith. He finds secular defenses wanting. Both for religious supporters of liberal democracy and human rights and for secular supporters, Perry's book is must reading. But the provocative chapters on such topics as religious freedom, abortion, same-sex unions, and the role of courts provide additional reasons to read this book." Lawrence A. Alexander, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego
"Michael Perry is widely recognized for his major contributions to our understanding of law, morality, and religion, and especially of the grounding, content, implications, and judicial enforcement of constitutionally entrenched human rights. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy should be of interest to every conscientious citizen." Richard George Wright, Lawrence A. Jegen Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law -- Indianapolis
"The literature on religion and public discourse and policy is now very considerable, and overwhelming American. Most of it has been written by philosophers and theologians. Michael Perry, however, makes a distinctive contribution in writing as an expert in constitutional law. This is a clearly written, logically organized, accessible, original book on an important and topical issue." Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford
"This book is the capstone of Professor Perry's long and fruitful engagement with the difficult question of how religion should inform lawmaking in a liberal democracy. As a political liberal who belongs to a culturally conservative religion, I have found Professor Perry's work both intellectually enlightening and personally meaningful. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is an excellent work that forces one out of reflexive responses to religion in politics." Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University
"The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is a focused, original, and important contribution to the discussion of religion and liberal democracy. Perry focuses on two of the most controversial cases in current debate: abortion and same-sex unions; and he offers a theoretical account of liberal democracy that reframes the terms in which those debates should be conducted. The argument of the book is clear and compelling. --Robin W. Lovin, Cary M. Maguire University Professor of Ethics, Southern Methodist University
"This is vintage Michael Perry. He addresses a big, fundamental, and timely issue: What are the moral convictions that should govern legislation and policy in a liberal democracy? He discusses the topic with verve, clarity, wide scope, and astounding learning; and both formulates general rules and analyzes specific cases. If you have been unsettled by attacks over the past several decades on our form of government, The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy is the book to read to quiet your doubts." Nicholas Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Yale University
Michael Perry has written a powerful defense of liberal democracy and human rights-a defense grounded on religious faith. He finds secular defenses wanting. Both for religious supporters of liberal democracy and human rights and for secular supporters, Perry's book is must reading. But the provocative chapters on such topics as religious freedom, abortion, same-sex unions, and the role of courts provide additional reasons to read this book." Lawrence A. Alexander, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego
"Michael Perry is widely recognized for his major contributions to our understanding of law, morality, and religion, and especially of the grounding, content, implications, and judicial enforcement of constitutionally entrenched human rights. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy should be of interest to every conscientious citizen." Richard George Wright, Lawrence A. Jegen Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law -- Indianapolis
"The literature on religion and public discourse and policy is now very considerable, and overwhelming American. Most of it has been written by philosophers and theologians. Michael Perry, however, makes a distinctive contribution in writing as an expert in constitutional law. This is a clearly written, logically organized, accessible, original book on an important and topical issue." Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford
Nonetheless, Robby, I will be happy to refund your $80 upon request.
Michael
To Dear Michael from Dear Robby
Dear Michael:
You are quite wrong. I was being completely serious. If I'm being obtuse, I'm sorry, but I did not get your point and still don't get it. That's why I asked my questions. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you and I are in disagreement; but I can't say for sure until I know what the proposition is we're supposed to be disagreeing about. After all, every now and then we do happen to agree about something. If the answers to my questions are in your new book, then I guess I'll know them soon. I do hope they are there, though. I don't want to pay $80 and still be in the dark! I completely agree that questions about legitimate reasons for political action are contestable and, in fact, contested by reasonable people of goodwill. My own judgment, as you know, is that people should believe in natural law and act in the political sphere on the basis of the public reasons for action and restraint that are its principles. In a certain sense, I defend a more expansive version of Rawls's doctrine of public reason. At the same time, I think there are good public reasons for not disenfranchising our fellow citizens who are fideists, Humeans, Nietzcheans, and subscribers to other schools of thought that reject my ideas (or Rawls's or others') about public reason, or those who are pragmatists, utilitarians, or adherents of other schools of thought whose conceptions of public reason I believe are misguided. I certainly don't think there are grounds for disenfranchising fideists while not disenfranchising their secular first cousins, the Humeans, for example. But I don't know whether you do. I'll read the book in the hope of finding out.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Something to keep more than an eye on...
First of all, first things first: a blessed feast of Guadalupe to one and all!
Two days ago, Michael Perry brought to our attention developments within the European Union concerning the Irish laws dealing with and restricting abortion, and from Michael’s posting (thanks, Michael) and other sources, we know that there are forces within the EU destined to make abortion access a “human right.” This appeal is based on an exaggerated and flawed reading of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legal challenge will have broad implications across the EU and here in the United States, no doubt about that.
This was the plan advance some years back when Jeffrey Dudgeon challenged the anti-sodomy laws of Northern Ireland. Similar arguments were made in his case about humiliation and fear of prosecution. After the Northern Irish law was declared invalid, other similar laws across the EU and under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe fell. After Dudgeon was decided, Justice Kennedy relied on it in the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. The ripple effect of Dudgeon was colossal.
Much the same can be expected if these challenges to the Irish law are upheld by the Strasbourg court. Right now the rhetoric advanced by advocates for abortion is hailed in some circles as progress for “reproductive rights.” It is astounding that these folks who argue that their position is in favor of “human rights” do not even think of the trauma that the lives of the very youngest members of our species will experience as a result of the prosecution of this faux right. If you doubt my assertion, please check out this position from our friends at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The EU has the resources to assist both mother and child, and that would be a great thing if efforts were pursued to do this. Sadly, this does not seem to be of interest to those prosecuting these claims. It is incomprehensible that they fail to see the damage to the health of the unborn and yet very much alive. Once again, the will seems destined to triumph over the intellect.
RJA sj
Further comments on contraceptives and the environment
Steve, I don't think that suggesting that the availability of contraceptives undermines the environment for women is just a play on words. Women here are being asked by Goodman to pollute their own bodies in order to save the planet. That seems odd to me and also somewhat oppressive of women who are being asked to accept this sacrifice.
The environmental damage done by the contraceptive pill goes beyond polluting the bodies of woman. An MOJ reader sent me two articles (here and here) discussing the environmental damage (to fish and other parts of our eco system) resulting from water pollution caused by water tainted with estrogen.
A Response to Michael
I th I thank Michael for his response.
(1) (1) To suggest that the availability of contraceptives undermines the environment for women is just a play on words. It has nothing to do with the depletion of the world’s resources and the climate change problem.
(2) (2) To question the impact of population growth on depletion of the world’s resources and the climate change problem does not seem promising. Goodman’s column quotes an authority on population “Our impact on the Earth is overwhelming. To say it has nothing do with our numbers is laughable.’’ This may sound harsh, but I do not see how it could be otherwise.
(3) (3) Michael suggests that the correlation between contraceptive information [and Goodman would add the availability of contraceptives for poor women] and lower numbers of children per family may not be one of causation. I doubt that though it is logically possible.
(4) (4) Michael wonders if the column to which I provided a link addresses the issue of a lack of replacement rate of children in Europe. No it does not. He asks whether Goodman would care. I am guessing. But given the exponential growth of people on the planet in the last century, I doubt that she would be concerned.
(5) (5) Michael wondered why I thought the Church leaders would think these facts irrelevant to the moral position. I think Church leaders would think we have a moral responsibility to protect the environment, but not in ways that violate moral laws. My post was not about the morality of birth control. It was rather to focus on one of many ways in which it is clear that the stakes concerning that position are very high.
I m I might say that this is one of many posts on this board that would better fit into a comments section. I will not clutter it further if Michael responds.
Contraceptives and the Environment: A reply to Steve
Some questions and comments regarding Steve's post linking Ellen Goodman's column on fertility rate, access to contraceptive information, and the environment.
Steve says: "Of course, Church leaders will think these considerations [protecting the environment] do not bear on the moral issue [contraceptives]." Why do you think this Steve? I suspect at a deep level, Church leaders would disagree with the factual claim that greater access to contraceptives will lead to greater environmental protection.
Goodman asserts that societies that have access to A (access to contraceptives) also have B (fewer children). She then concludes that C (environmental protection) will follow. But, does she (or others) make a case for a causal link between A and B and AB and C?
Does Goodman address (or maybe she doesn't care) about the less than replacement fertility rate in much of Europe?
Finally, it seems an odd argument to me that the earth's environment should be cleaned up by polluting (in the case of some contraceptive options) the bodily environment of women.
Contraceptives and the Environment
Ellen Goodman had some interesting
remarks about the environment and contraceptives in her Friday column:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/11/the_human_factor_is_missing_in_copenhagen/
Among other things, she said: “It turns
out that every society that offers a range of contraceptive options and
information to women has a fertility rate of two children or fewer - and this
includes developing countries such as Iran and Thailand. Today the average size
of a family has shrunk from five children to two and a half. But there are
still hundreds of millions of married women who don’t have access to services
or information. . . .
“There are nearly 7 billion people in
the world today. Scientists project 9.5 billion people by 2050. In fact, there
could be 8.5 billion or 10.5 billion. Depending
on what we do.”
Goodman argues, I think rightly, that
policy regarding contraceptives has enormous implications regarding the
environment. She suggests that there is no investment in protecting the
environment that is as inexpensive or that brings such enormous benefits.
Of course, Church leaders will think
these considerations do not bear on the moral issue. But they do make it all
the more important that the Church leaders are right and they make it even more
tragic that the Church has stubbornly adhered to a flawed position if it is
wrong.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
