tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post6710040546216405714..comments2024-03-29T01:24:45.251+00:00Comments on Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Grisez ... the obituariesFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-91805156972707486982018-02-27T17:44:37.222+00:002018-02-27T17:44:37.222+00:00Mr Wood, surely your line of argument already impo...Mr Wood, surely your line of argument already imports consequentialist ideas?<br /><br />Consequentialism makes four typical claims:<br /><br />a)concede your responsibility for or complicity in all evils in the world which transpire within the field of your awareness, especially those that develop as predictable but contingent (even unwanted) results of your own acts.<br /><br />b) grant that Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11974875199385791945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-86900804466938271342018-02-12T20:46:43.293+00:002018-02-12T20:46:43.293+00:00The Finnis/Grisez book is excellent and worth stud...The Finnis/Grisez book is excellent and worth study. The policy of deterrence seeks to avoid the loss of innocent life by preventing war, i.e., the intent of the policy itself is not to kill innocents, rather the opposite. The means employed would kill innocents if nuclear war broke out. But Finnis and Grisez, in calling for an end to nuclear deterrence in order that we might suffer injustice Joseph Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979195442852231861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-16581900176293162222018-02-12T17:41:47.889+00:002018-02-12T17:41:47.889+00:00Father, then we must be polite. It is incumbent up...Father, then we must be polite. It is incumbent upon us to tell the Russians and Chinese: "After you".Michael Leahyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15044897013849386271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-39821328606524318312018-02-12T17:27:35.095+00:002018-02-12T17:27:35.095+00:00Dear Michael
My problem with what you say is ... ...Dear Michael<br /><br />My problem with what you say is ... you seem to be opening the door ("it is not entirely fair to condemn those Catholics who" etc.) to arguing that the end (avoiding the suicidal results of unilateral nuclear disarmament)justifies the means (keep the bombs). I don't see how we can possibly criticise the heretics for arguing as they do if, when it happens to Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-7886746664172187432018-02-12T12:36:42.338+00:002018-02-12T12:36:42.338+00:00I don't disagree with Grisez's conclusions...I don't disagree with Grisez's conclusions that nuclear deterrence cannot be morally justified. This provides us with little practical help in escaping from the 'Mexican standoff' we find ourselves in. This dilemma implies, in my opinion, that it is not entirely fair to condemn those Catholics who reluctantly support 'MAD', because it might well be suicidal to engage in Michael Leahyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15044897013849386271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-5723138793509594092018-02-12T06:32:41.444+00:002018-02-12T06:32:41.444+00:00Grisez was a thinker of such stature that he comma...Grisez was a thinker of such stature that he commands respect even if one does not agree with everything he said. May he rest in peace.<br /><br />The silence in 'conservative' circles about his inconvenient views on nuclear deterrence reminds me of the fate of the validity of moral absolutes (and thus the conclusion that there can be intrinsically evil acts)by that Oxford institution andPMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06144651697262763099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-59557805379311014092018-02-11T20:20:07.440+00:002018-02-11T20:20:07.440+00:00I agree, Thomas. Exactly.
Another person with str...I agree, Thomas. Exactly.<br /><br />Another person with strong views on this subject, despite having an extreme Right Wing reputation, was Enoch Powell. His speeches against Nuclear Weapons were in such beautifully lucid English that I used to give them to my students for Latin Prose Composition!<br /><br />But Powell (although an Anglo-Catholic) was not a Catholic Moralist. Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-36110726669816497762018-02-11T17:01:12.743+00:002018-02-11T17:01:12.743+00:00On nuclear deterrence, I would expect my comments ...On nuclear deterrence, I would expect my comments to be disabled, since I have not read the book in question (although I will do so as soon as I can).<br /><br />I do, however, have a Master's degree in War Studies from King's College London (1983) and have more than a passing acquaintance with deterrence theory. A British Prime Minister may have made the decision, on moral grounds, that John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-15045439189527386202018-02-11T15:51:59.733+00:002018-02-11T15:51:59.733+00:00Here's the thing. I highly recommend For the A...Here's the thing. I highly recommend <a href="https://ignatiushisconclave.org/author/gkirkuk/" rel="nofollow">For the Avoidance of Doubt</a> by gkirkuk (fresh out this morning!) for an example of where flirtations with neo-Kantian style thinking (yes, that includes Thomas Kuhn and his "paradigm change" theory of science) leads. For every Grisez or Finnis with a nostalgia for "mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12847411975641738898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-8642841853903642732018-02-11T14:02:45.020+00:002018-02-11T14:02:45.020+00:00Thanks very much for raising the issue of nuclear ...Thanks very much for raising the issue of nuclear deterrence. I have always thought it to be a strategy which cannot be reconciled with the moral principles upon which war may sometimes be justified in our fallen world. Such weapons are inherently indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate to any 'peace' achievable in their aftermath. It is no argument to say that the threat of mutually Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-12505531029362536172018-02-11T13:29:47.779+00:002018-02-11T13:29:47.779+00:00Dear Mr Wauck
I would not call you anything like ...Dear Mr Wauck<br /><br />I would not call you anything like that; I welcome and respect your comments.Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-15551517441663019982018-02-11T12:40:18.041+00:002018-02-11T12:40:18.041+00:00"Germain Grisez was one of the great 'tra..."Germain Grisez was one of the great 'traditional' Catholic moral thinkers and writers of the twentieth century."<br /><br />From his Wikipedia page: "Grisez attacked the neo-scholastic interpretation of Aquinas as holding that moral norms are derived from methodologically antecedent knowledge of human nature. Grisez defended the idea of metaphysical free choice, and mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12847411975641738898noreply@blogger.com