Democratic Candidate’s Research Paper Position is Not Unforgivable

“Local  Democratic party leaders decided not to impede the campaign of an upstart state representative candidate, but many still aren’t forgiving Ben Lindy for the anti-research paper he wrote in law school.”

The article proceeded to explain that the resolution to strip him of “the essential benefits provided a candidate in order to run a fair campaign” failed by just a few votes, 26-21.  Additional fuel for this uproar stemmed from the fact that “it was discovered last month that his Yale University research paper has been cited in a legal brief used in a U.S. Supreme Court case that could weaken unions’ collective bargaining agreement nationwide, including in Ohio.”¹

Purpose  of  Research

It’s understandable that the party which counts on the backing of unions would be apprehensive of possible fallout from some of their supporters over this.  But let’s step back for a moment.  The purpose of the academic world is to make clear previously undiscovered conclusions.  It aims to shed preconceived notions in order to reach these conclusions objectively.

The fact that a research paper is “anti-union” does not make it intrinsically evil, worthy of disdain.  The presence of labor unions may or may not be beneficial.  Unions are not inherently good or bad because it depends on the circumstances and application.

Intrinsic  Evil  vs.  Prudential

This conflict exemplifies the confusion which has existed in our nation for a long time.  For example, Prohibition was instituted because a majority was not able to understand that alcoholic drink is a prudential issue.^2,3  A drink for an adult is not necessarily a bad thing.  It can be if the person is predisposed to addiction or excessive use, but a drink itself is not inherently evil.  Thus, the 18^th Amendment was not only inappropriate for the purpose of the Constitution but it incorrectly labeled all alcoholic drinks as something to prohibit under all circumstances.

Abortion, on the other hand, is intrinsically evil despite attempts to rationalize it with reasons ranging from “privacy”⁴  to the erroneous assertion that we don’t know when human life begins.^5,6  The act of abortion is always morally wrong even though the level of moral responsibility may vary for each individual involved.

An “anti-union” research paper does not carry the same moral liability.  The subject of unions is a prudential issue requiring discernment for each situation.  Each position deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.  Regardless, “unforgiving” is not an admirable attitude.

Of course, if the Democratic Party strongly opposes a person’s views on this, perhaps he should switch parties.

 

 

¹ –“Democrats back off sanctioning candidate,” by Jason Williams, The Kentucky Enquirer, 2/6/2016

² – “Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of the intention or purpose for which the act was chosen, regardless of the circumstances or consequences of the act, and regardless of the other acts that are chosen before, during, or after the intrinsically evil act. Nothing can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.” By Ron Conte, contributor to Catholic Answers Forums, http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=476417, 7/16/2010.

³ – Prudential issues are not clear-cut, but require sound judgment.  “Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgment less assured and decision difficult.” From paragraph 1787 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

⁴ – “On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.”  https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion-access/roe-v-wade/

⁵ – “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.” spoken by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to Candy Crowley of CNN’s “State of the Union,” http://www.cnsnews.com, 7/28/2014 as reported in “Pelosi Blatantly Lied Regarding Church’s Teaching on Abortion, So Why Not Misrepresent Hamas, Too?” https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/pelosi-blatantly-lied-regarding-churchs-teaching-on-abortion-so-why-not-misrepresent-hamas-too/, 8/7/2014.

⁶ – “Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit…” from the second paragraph of section 60 of “Evangelium Vitae,” by Pope John Paul II, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html, 3/25/1995.

Redistributing Income For “Social Justice”, but Claiming to be Against “Legislating Morality”?

Seizing  Money  from  Criminals

If someone has income, we must initially assume that it was earned legally.  If proven otherwise, then there are a multitude of laws which can be applied and a sentence imposed which may include the confiscation of part of his wealth.

Taking  Money  from  Non-Criminals

If no crime has been committed, but those in power still wish to take away part of the person’s earnings, then it’s done in the interest of “fairness” or to support “social justice” programs.  These actions arise from a sense of “morality.”¹  Those in favor of this say that, while the wealth was obtained legitimately, in their opinion the individual needs to share more with others than what he has already donated to good causes.

Thus, legal ways of taking some of this person’s income are created.  This is usually done in the form of “taxes.” Sometimes the money is used for very good causes which go beyond the routine funding of the government’s operation and for infrastructure projects.  These funds are collected and sent to agencies which redistribute the money to designated recipients.  These agencies may or may not be strictly governmental in origin.

Prudential  Issues

Redistributing income to others deemed to be in need is “morality in action.”²  It must be noted that these programs are “prudential” issues – or as Wikipedia describes, they are “often associated with wisdom, insight and knowledge. In this case, the virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place.”  The words “at a given time and place” are critical because this means that these tax laws are not inherently “virtuous” or “vicious.”  There are degrees of goodness and badness.

Non-Prudential  (Intrinsically  Evil  or  Good)  Issues

On the other hand, there are other moral issues which are not prudential because they are intrinsically evil or good.  These are the “black and white” (no racial connotation) issues which require the enactment of complete legal abolishment or protection.

Intrinsically evils include murder, slavery and abortion.  There can be no degree of murder, slavery or abortion which is acceptable in a just society.

Intrinsically good actions include the protection of voting rights for all persons of legal age, freedom of speech and religion, etc.  Any amount of infringement must not be tolerated in a just society.

A stumbling block for many is the religious institution of marriage between one man and one woman.  It is essential for a civilized society and; therefore, it is also a non-prudential issue.  No earthly entity (religious or secular) has the authority to change its definition for any reason.

In a civilized society, morality influences laws/rules.  The intrinsically good or evil issues must be “set in stone.”  They are the foundational basics which separate human societies from merely becoming a group of intelligent animals.

Proponents  of  “Morality  in  Action”  Sometimes  Contradict  Themselves

Income redistribution is a prudential issue because it is not inherently good or evil.  A society can function well with it in varying degrees or without it altogether.  Its proponents tend to be found among the “progressives”, and most reside in the Democratic Party.  They are driven by a sense of what they believe is fair or just; thus, they use a moral basis for discussion and implementation.

However, they somehow have difficulty with the foundational aspects of society (the non-prudential) which are really the easiest to recognize and to put into law.  These are the issues which a civilized society cannot compromise and still survive.  When it is suggested to protect the unborn or to respect the timeless institution of marriage, they are quick to recoil and say, “You can’t legislate morality! — even though that is where they get the inspiration for their social projects.  Yes, contradiction in action.

¹ – “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior, the degree to which something is right and good, from www.merriam-webster.com
² — “Morality in action” does not mean legislating church practices into public law.  Recognizing that morality impacts decisions on legislation does not mean that specific church practices are being enacted.