Some Catholic
voices online have been suggesting that the example of Spanish colonialism justifies
the Trump administration’s expansionist foreign policy – including the threat
to take Greenland by force. Catholic podcaster Matt Walsh, with whom I
recently had a lively exchange about these matters
on Twitter/X, appeals to Catholic colonialism and also
claims that a war to secure resources is "totally legitimate." Others appeal to the Crusades, or to ancient
Israel’s conquest of Canaan. In
a
new article at First Things, I
argue that all of these arguments are fallacious. They ignore crucial moral and theological
differences between the cases. Church
history provides no support for Trump’s jingoistic expansionism.
I don't know why Mr. Feser continues to bring up Just War doctrine in order to analyze the president's actions. No war between the USA and Venezuela, nor between USA and Denmark was ever declared.
ReplyDeleteMr. Feser may think that some act of war has taken place between these countries, but has provided no evidence or argument for such a proposition. I look forward to an eventual rectification of this state of affairs.
If bombing another country and sending armed troops there to accomplish a political aim by force does not constitute "war," then the word is utterly meaningless. War is neither a mysterious nor esoteric concept. Stop feigning mental decrepitude just because clear thinking has become politically inconvenient.
DeleteExactly, Thurible. The "What war?" party line is one of the most contemptible bits in the gigantic pile of contemptible propaganda. Sending in troops to seize a head of state is of its nature an act of war (whether justifiable or not), whether or not someone decides to label it as such. And seizing a tanker, closing a country's airspace, threatening to send a second wave of troops in later, etc. are all also acts of war. Not to mention that Trump himself explicitly said "this is war." Still, these robots dutifully repeat the talking point they've been given. Then there's the excellent point made in this clip: https://x.com/KatTimpf/status/2008382780640571440?s=20
DeleteIt's a cross between Trump-worshiping legal positivism and Humpty-Dumpty nominalism:
Delete"A war is what the US President says it is, nothing more, nothing less."
@feser @thurible I'm simply applying your own standards to the situation.
DeleteYou've witnessed years of human trafficking, narco-terrorism, murder of US citizens, and other acts of war against the USA, but stick your fingers in your ears and whine. "It's impossible to attribute any of these things to Venezuela. It hasn't been established to my satisfaction!!"
Well, shoe's on the other foot now, you gluttonous waste of space. There's no evidence of any Act of War perpetuated by the US. None. Those bombs? No evidence they were dropped by the US. Invasion by armed forces? Unrelated non-state actors. Trump's statements? Well you've called him an unreliable source, so that can be thrown out easily.
There's no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the USA, and your statements are nothing but the libelous whining of an unjust, uneducated, hysterical, unthinking heretic.
The USA has been subject to decades of acts of war by foreign powers: Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and other hostis humani generii. No further justification is needed to retaliate against them. It is a mark of our Mercy that we have not done so. Though everything alleged of the USA would be completely and utterly justified, none of these alleged actions were true, and you are a liar and a unrighteous servant of darkness for saying so.
Grow up you infantile, sophomoric, failures.
Anon,
DeleteTry decaf.
Far be it from me to endorse the actions of the Spanish Empire and its like but has someone pointed out to Walsh that the USA is not a Catholic monarchy?
ReplyDeleteOr a more rhetorically brutal question: would Mr Walsh endorse another Crusade to retake the Kingdom of Jerusalem? If not why not?
Regardless of the argument Walsh made, I think you're demanding far too much from Just War Theory. In "From Just War to Modern Peace Ethics", the various authors chronicle the development of Just War and it is the case that there was a much more "lax" attitude to war then one now. Wars of honor were explicitly defended by someone like Suarez iirc. Furthermore, Just War is the for the *sovereign* not anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really saying that Feser is wrong as such but he's demanding too much. Many thoughts WWI to be a Just War (we have records of German Bishops explicitly saying so). The Just War doctrine is to avoid pointless slaughter ala Mongolia to China. One could say that American to Greenland would be one such case. Denmark having a claim to Greenland is fine but if some foreign adversaries were to attack Greenland, it would be America first and foremost defending the land so idk how much the "claim matters."
I completely agree with this analysis Prof. Very nuanced and erudite as always. I hope and pray saner minds in the administration will prevail.
DeleteAlthough I would rather, that you not bring attention or lend legitimacy to the thoughts of Shock Jocks like Matt Walsh.
Just look at the way in which he interacted with you. Didn't seem to be in good faith at all.
Scott Adams has just passed away, God rest his soul
But just look at the kinds of things Matt is posting ,
"To have monsters celebrate your death is not a bad thing. In fact it is a tribute. But to die and have no one either mourn or celebrate, to die and be forgotten, to have left no impact of any kind on the world, to have your existence add up to nothing in the end — that is the greatest horror. And it’s the fate of basically every leftist who gloated over Charlie, and gloats now over Scott. Gloat all you want, you pathetic nothings. We will not return the favor when you die, because we won’t know or care."
Leaving a side the basic Catholic duty to pray for one's enemies as well as their souls once they are no longer on this planet. Even to write something like
"But to die and have no one either mourn or celebrate, to die and be forgotten, to have left no impact of any kind on the world, to have your existence add up to nothing in the end — that is the greatest horror. "
No, my dear friends, the greatest horror is to die without the friendship of God.
We must not forget the story of Lazarus. He probably had no one to mourn for him but in the end he ended up in the bosom of Abraham.
We have to pray for all our catholic brothers and sisters like Matt who are straying from the faith to appease the mob especially when it comes to serious things like the unjust annexation of Greenland.
"I'm not really saying that Feser is wrong as such but he's demanding too much."
DeleteI'm pretty confident that "Don't shoot at longtime allies who have done you no harm" is not demanding too much. All this "Gee whiz, just war doctrine is so limiting" stuff that people are resorting to lately is pure sophistry, a shameless putting of politics ahead of principle.
Hi Norm, yes, he has been saying some awful and ignorant things, but that's precisely why a response is needed, because he has a large audience and will mislead many into thinking that his views are somehow permissible according to traditional Catholic moral theology.
DeleteI didn't really say it clearly, but I meant that in a more abstract sense. I don't think Just War is limiting, it's very permissive doctrine in my opinion.
DeleteFrom the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Suarez: A just cause of war is “a grave wrong which cannot be avenged or repaired in any other way” (DDB 4.1).[17] Examples are the unjust seizure of property of the prince or subjects, violations to the rights of nations, and, controversially, grave injuries to the honor or reputation of the prince or the subjects (DDB 4.3).
That tracks with my own reading of Suarez and the general tradition even if the specifics aren't as clear as Feser's. Suarez isn't infallible by any means, but I think his articulation of Just War is much more compelling than the rather narrow account Feser has given. One would be hard pressed to find examples of Greenland causing grave injury to the reputation of Trump or Americans but one could likely find such an example among the various EU member states.
I don't mean to be offensive!
Excellent takedown of Matt Walsh's specious arguments, Ed.
ReplyDeleteAlas, Walsh provides an excellent illustration of how fealty to Trump corrupts one's soul.
Here is a good article giving an argument from a different point of view which I agree with. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/trump-crushes-narco-socialism-in-venezuela-a-victory-for-life-and-the-church/
ReplyDeleteGive an opposing view a chance.
Stick to the subject. That article has nothing to do with the specific claims I was addressing in the First Things essay.
DeleteAlso, he has not "crushed narco-terrorism in Venezuela." So far all he has done is removed Maduro, while leaving his government in place. He has also been talking obsessively about oil rather than human rights or even drugs. The liberation rhetoric is, so far anyway, merely rhetoric rather than substance.
He is on his way to crush it. He doesn't need to give a detailed plan in public. That is imprudent and impractical. It is relevant that you don't have experience implementing stategic actions and plans even though you say it isn't. These situations are dynamic and need adjustments along the way. That is reality in making big changes in the world today. Your arguments are coming off as nieve from your lack of experience leading large organizational strtegic changes. It's about implementing the changes ethically. Trump has access to information you and others don't have and shouldn't have. The big picture situation is most important to judge the morality in context. There is a coordinated internal insurrency and external coordinated intent by socialist/communists and pure Islamists to destroy western civilization.
DeleteThe Catholic Church has rejected socialism and communism. The hstory of the Church on just war theory is largely irrelevant for our modern situation. Just war theory has excellent principles but the nature of war needs to consider the nature of "war" in our current situation in history. Western culture and the Church are being weakened from within by intentional evil negative powers both outside and inside the Church. The negative powers attempting to gain control of the world are motivated by modernistic secular humanism, heretical Islam, nominalistic influenced modernist philosophy and theology. The Chinese are also making tremendous headway to position themselves to influence and control other countries and eventually carry out the jingoistic attacks you are accusing Trump of. Trump has done more diplomacy and dialogue with these evil powers than any president and stopped more wars in a short period of time in office Negotiating with evil powers will do no good to without the strength to back it up. He won't invade Greenland, he will find a mutually beneficial agreement.
You are a very influential person who I greatly respect. What you say carries weight. Consider the context in which you are making claims that Trump's actions are immoral. The context is the wider "war". Don't sell Trump short like some voices out there saying he is only acting make money for associates and steal it for the US only. His goals are better understood looking the bigger picture which is the early stages of WWIII, prevention of its escalation into a superpower war with the Chinese, Russia and Islam and the prevention of an eventual communistic takeover of the world. Can you or anyone here suggest a president better than Trump for the job? If so, who? This is a real situation and we need to be moral and practical within the context of the "war" at every stage. However, there are many stages of this "war" on many fronts and it is dynamic in nature.
"Can you or anyone here suggest a president better than Trump for the job? If so, who?"
DeleteA president who doesn't threaten to annex allies' territory by force would be nice.
So, "Anonymous II" writes: "The hstory of the Church on just war theory is largely irrelevant for our modern situation. Just war theory has excellent principles but the nature of war needs to consider the nature of 'war' in our current situation in history.". And what is the difference? Ah: "The negative powers attempting to gain control of the world are motivated by modernistic secular humanism, heretical Islam, nominalistic influenced modernist philosophy and theology.".
DeleteSo, did Suares or St. Thomas Aquinas did not know Islam? Did they not know something about nominalism?
"Trump has done more diplomacy and dialogue with these evil powers than any president" - is that supposed to be good or bad? Ah, "Negotiating with evil powers will do no good to without the strength to back it up." - so are we supposed to say that Trump did a great evil in negotiating with Putin without having Greenland?
That's the absurdities to which your sophistry is leading.
As it is said in one of the Psalms: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will call upon the name of the Lord our God. They are bound, and have fallen; but we are risen, and are set upright.".
And, by the way, even from a purely materialistic point of view, goodwill of the allies is not worthless and Greenland is not that vital. Especially, if a war is expected. At the very least, allies give enemies more targets to attack.
"Can you or anyone here suggest a president better than Trump for the job?" - the claim here is that one action the President made was unjust. As far, as I can tell, here it is not claimed that the President should be overthrown or otherwise replaced before the end of his term. Even a milder remedy hasn't been suggested. So, I'd say you should not overreact.
Oh and, by the way, it is getting hard to tell "Anonymous I", "Anonymous II" "Anonymous III" and the rest of "Anonymous" apart...
You are missing the big picture here. The assault on the western world, especially the US, is coordinated and targeted by the forces I mentioned above. It is an attack carried out to infiltrate from within the US to weaken us and continue to gain power in the western hemisphere outside the US as well. That migration has become weaponized is underscored by the views of the Chief of the Russian Defence Staff, General Valery Gerasimov’s worldview, that “wars are no longer declared and, having begun, proceed according to an unfamiliar template. […] The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of the force of weapons in their effectiveness”. We must be proactive in our defenses for them to be effective. For instance, Greenland is necessary for the effectiveness of the Golden Dome and other vulnerabilities that need to be protected against in that region for the good of both the US and NATO. There is also a new book out today.
DeleteHaving a complete plan and justification for any military action or series of actions put out beforehand to the public and approval by congress is not practical or desirable. In this age of fast communications and intelliegence gathering quick decisions and secrecy are even more important than in the wars hundreds of years ago. The demand that this plan and justification be published and approved by congress and communicated to the public beforehand is the equivalent of having the President have to fill out a very detailed form to explain the objective and justify the morality of every step for the public and then have the congress sign it. It seems academia is always at least a step behind in their points of view when making judgements of how practically things should be done to meet theories they have (Just War Theory). The principles of Just War Theory are great. It basicly says war should only be waged in defense and that civilians should be protected. How the war looks in our modern guerilla war age is different than centuries ago. Decisions are made in much faster increments and should use the just war principles as each are made. Involving congress for approval in every step is problematical as is communicating completely with the public, which only has partial knowledge of the background intelligence.
Peter Schweizer's forthcoming book 'The Invisible Coup' documents alleged coordinated influence efforts by China, Russia, Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar et. al., Mexico who thinks they should have their territory in the US back.
Since the end of the Cold War in the 1990's the US Army War College has adopted the VUCA approach. VUCA needs an agile approaches to planning that are incremental and rely on intelligence feedback. The belief is that rigid planning may fail in the environment of war since the Cold War and that management in the current environment is a serious challenge. VUCA stands for Volatility (Rapidly changing speed and dynamics), Uncertainty (Surprises due to lack of predictability), Complexity (There are many forces and confounding issues with no direct cause and effect chain), Ambiguity (reality is hazy and easy to misread). The Just War theory is applicable, but needs to be applied within these new conditions under which modern military strategy and ethical decision making need to be adopted. The coming of the age of artificial intelligence is now escalating all of these VUCA aspects and needs agilel approaches to integratiing Just War principles into the decision making process.
Delete"The Just War theory is applicable, but needs to be applied within these new conditions under which modern military strategy and ethical decision making need to be adopted." - that looks a bit silly.
DeleteThe Church teaching on theft has been formulated when the locks were only mechanical. Does it mean that now that we have more advanced locks, something in this Church teaching has to be adapted?
And when we look at the actual "changes", they seem to be even less impressive (and less relevant) than invention of more advanced locks.
"The belief is that rigid planning may fail in the environment of war since the Cold War and that management in the current environment is a serious challenge." - so, just like in any other war throughout the history? After all, Clausewitz wrote about "Friction in War" long before the Cold War.
"Annonymous II" wrote: "In this age of fast communications and intelliegence gathering quick decisions and secrecy are even more important than in the wars hundreds of years ago. The demand that this plan and justification be published and approved by congress and communicated to the public beforehand is the equivalent of having the President have to fill out a very detailed form to explain the objective and justify the morality of every step for the public and then have the congress sign it." - so, does that mean that it is unacceptable for the President to write about this in social media several days, weeks or months before the (possible) fact?
After all, if he hadn't done that, we wouldn't be talking about this. The problem is not that he gave no justification. The problem is that he gave a justification and it is inadequate.
And finally, it is not even certain that Trump really wants to conquer Greenland. It wouldn't be the first time when he threatens something unreasonable, only to encourage others to agree to a deal that is far less unreasonable. It might well be that he will be content with more effective patrols around Greenland, some military bases and mineral rights.
Unfortunately, in the process he is also alienating allies. That seems to be unwise before the war. And, as our host has mentioned previously, threatening to do something immoral is also immoral.
I'm afraid that he does not really have any sort of a plan for foreign policy, only some tendencies (for example, "Make America Great Again", with understanding that it was "Great" under McKinley and the like). And wanting great honors (like Nobel Peace Prize). Hopefully, that is an example of magnanimity and not vainglory...
And finally, it is not even certain that Trump really wants to conquer Greenland. It wouldn't be the first time when he threatens something unreasonable, only to encourage others to agree to a deal that is far less unreasonable.
DeleteMP's comment here is prescient.
It's also true that I said something similar back in May:
I don't know if Trump was doing something similar about Greenland, but the above comments about political maneuvering for other purposes makes more sense than simple territorial ambition on Trump's part. He certainly didn't campaign on this, and there's no BIG reason for Trump to push this merely for the territory. I think he's engaged on other maneuvers than what's on the surface.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2025/05/greenland-and-ethics-of-annexation.html
A fan of yours for the most part, Ed, but I couldn't read the whole article at First Things because it mandated a subscription. Thanks, Ed. I got half the article because you chose First Things.
ReplyDeleteI was invited to write a piece for them and have no knowledge of or control over what they choose to paywall. Maybe you should try appreciating the fact that the article will get more attention because they ran it, and thus hopefully do more good.
DeleteI didn't require subscription, simply free registration.
DeleteIt would also get more attention via many other sites who would publish it without needing a subscription. Perhaps you can appreciate that to widen your readership to other outlets that will not require a subscription, or ask those that do to allow you to post it on your own website within a few weeks max.
DeleteP.S. Not the same Anonymous who responded on Jan. 14.
Dr. Edward Feser is one of the world's leading Thomistic philosophers and a best-selling author. I agree with what he says about expansion, but he is not, however, a professional historian or a military strategist. Besides, Trump is not going to annex Greenland or make war on Cuba or other countries. He is saber rattling and trying to scare those countries.
ReplyDeleteI am far more concerned with the lawfare Trump is waging against those who oppose him and his use of ICE and CBP as his personal army. He has said he should have had the military seize the ballot boxes in 2020, and he has hinted about invoking the Insurrection Act If he thinks the Dems might win the midterms, he will interfere with the election because he knows they will block his agenda and impeach him again.
First, that I am not a professional historian is irrelevant. If what I said is true, it would not somehow magically have been made more true had I been a historian. If something I said is not true, then you should tell us exactly what it is rather than give us this vague "Oh, you're not a historian" hand-waving.
DeleteSecond, that I am not a military strategist is even less relevant, because what I was addressing had nothing at all to do with military strategy. It had to do with the historical facts (see above) and with matters of ethics, which are precisely within the domain of philosophers and theologians.
Third, even if he is just sabre rattling (not as plausible a supposition now than it was even a couple of weeks ago), he would still be acting immorally, for reasons I've addressed elsewhere.
Fourth, the lawfare etc. are indeed bad, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about other bad things too. Maybe you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but others among us manage just fine.
He would sieze the balllot boxes because they are computers and doing digital forensics is the only way to prove they have been hacked into. The hacking is very possible and probably not that hard for someone who knows what the are doing. Remote data connections were used to transmit the votes. The data could have been changed in many ways. I teach cybersecurity.
DeleteAbout the insurrection, there is most certainly an insurrection being waged lead by politicians and others with money behind the scenes. This is very evident in Minneapolis and other US cities. Whether he invokes the insurrection act is another question.
I mentioned the fact that you are neither a professional historian nor a military strategist because I disagree with your belief that the nuclear bombing of Japan was immoral. A deep understanding of Japanese history and military strategy demonstrates that the nuclear bombing was necessary and did shorten what would have been a longer war that would have cost more lives, both Allied and Japanese.
DeleteP.S. I run a lot. And I often chew gum and run. It actually helps.
https://marathonhandbook.com/running-gum/
I disagree with Professor Feser about many points, but appeal to some specialist topic cannot justify something incoherent, something reminiscent of the New Atheist handwaving appeals to “Physics” when claiming Nothing (as in not anything) can do things. This made worse when the exact relevant information from said specialist topic is not actually given.
DeleteWhat is the morality relevant factor about WW2 Japan that Ed is missing? Were those cities about to launch a superweapon that could be stopped in no other way (and thus really legitimate targets)? Were they really mass munitions storages made to look like civilian dwellings. It cannot be that detonating the bomb was necessary to force an end to the war as that’s the kind of consequential justification he and those of the Just War Tradition reject.
"A deep understanding of Japanese history and military strategy demonstrates that the nuclear bombing was necessary and did shorten what would have been a longer war that would have cost more lives, both Allied and Japanese."? - what deep understanding?
DeleteDo you mean understanding that "Surrender so that I could kill you - or be killed!!!" does not provide a good motivation for surrender? That much is true. But you need no "deep understanding" of anything to see that.
If the Allied leaders had decided what they actually wanted to achieve (which is something needed both from a moral point of view and from military point of view), the Japanese would probably have surrendered long before nuclear weapons would have been ready.
But, unfortunately, it seems that the leaders of Western Allies mostly went to war to impress everyone around them (each other, voters etc.), and did not have any specific goals in mind.
Which is a pity, for there were many profitable, achievable and moral goals available.
For that matter, I'd like to point out Anscombe's "The Justice of the Present War Examined" which pointed out that, while it was very easy for UK to make a just war against Germany, the actual UK's war against Germany was not just. And the future did show that the just cause that would have been the most obvious (defence of allies, specifically, Poland) was not real: Poland lost its freedom to Stalin, and the Western Allies surely did not treat that as losing the war. Instead, they happily stopped paying any attention to Polish government-in-exile.
And the future did show that the just cause that would have been the most obvious (defence of allies, specifically, Poland) was not real: Poland lost its freedom to Stalin, and the Western Allies surely did not treat that as losing the war. Instead, they happily stopped paying any attention to Polish government-in-exile.
DeleteThere's about 6 ways your comments miss the boat. To take just one: Britain (i.e. Churchill) did want to prevent Stalin taking Poland and eastern Europe. He couldn't do it without the US, and the US leadership (Roosevelt and Truman) refused (possibly correctly judging Congress and the American public's view of such a new war). So, changes during the war forced an alteration of the possible options that could be achieved. It's part of just war activity not only to have a just cause at the beginning, but to change your objectives if conditions warrant, (and this includes surrender if you can no longer achieve the goals you set out because you've lost the military scheme).
"There's about 6 ways your comments miss the boat. To take just one: Britain (i.e. Churchill) did want to prevent Stalin taking Poland and eastern Europe. He couldn't do it without the US, and..." - you might note I did not argue from failure to achieve an objective as such.
DeleteInstead, I argued from celebrations of victory (not of "partial victory" or merely "end of war"), when the stated objective was not achieved.
After all, victory means achievement of objectives. If we celebrate a victory, but the stated objective hasn't been achieved, either it is a fake celebration of a fake victory (but those would be more likely on the Soviet side), or that objective was fake (or mostly unimportant, secondary).
The US declared war on Germany and Japan, not on "totalitarianism". We beat Germany and celebrated that. Then defeated Japan and celebrated that. Sure, the situation then prevailing was still with Poland under a totalitarian rule, but the US never promised to free Poland from totalitarianism (that was a British commitment). We wanted free self-determination for Poland, but we didn't formally commit to that as an explicit, promised goal.
DeleteBut we helped them achieve it in the end, 44 years late. In part through the efforts of containing and pressuring Russia via NATO, which was in part the fruit of the war, though not clearly envisioned in detail at the beginning.
It remains that when you modify your objectives mid-war, to newer, more limited goals, due to reduced capacity to achieve the whole good sought, this does nothing to prove that the original just cause was not really a just cause, nor that your means used run afoul of ius in bello, nor to prove that you never had a reasonable prospect of success. A reasonable prospect isn't a certainty, and a reasonable prospect of a large goal includes within it a reasonable prospect of more limited goals as well.
I just want to say that I really appreciate your stepping forward here, Prof. Feser, at a time when too many Catholics (and Christians generally) are allowing political pressures and tribalism to corrupt their understanding of faith and morals. As Catholics, we need to mold our politics in the image of the Gospel, not our understanding of the Gospel in the image of our political tribe.
ReplyDeleteThanks for upholding the truth and moral honesty above everything else, Ed.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you as a philosopher, as you know, but also your ability not to take sides on this or that matter, but only to guide yourself through the Truth and the doctrine of the Church.
As I said many times, you are a gift to this world --as a philosopher, writer and a person. Don't let blind idealists put you down.
Very kind as always Vini, thank you
DeleteYou are indeed very kind, Vini. And yes, I continue to pray for you as I said I would do.
DeleteCould not ready the whole thing, sadly, but very good text, Dr. Feser! While focused on Trump, it was quite a good reading on the nuances of the Church treatment of these old empires.
ReplyDeleteLike most popular takes on the catholic empires, things were more complex that what they seems to us.
"I haven’t changed at all. You’re mistaking your own movement for mine, like the man on a departing train who thinks the railroad platform is speeding away from him. All I’ve been doing is upholding the traditional teaching of the Church, like you used to do."
ReplyDeleteThe last time I saw a massacre like this, Sonny Corleone was waiting for his change on the causeway.
:-D
DeleteDear Dr. Feser,
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about the situation with Greenland and have been grateful for the reminders about justice in speech and about the seventh commandment. Greenland is not ours and it would be a grave injustice to take it. And we should avoid signaling that we intend to do something that we don't have the right to do.
As the ten commandments are reflective of natural law, I have questions about where situational particulars might affect certain acts that appear to violate the commandments, but in fact do not. So for example, my understanding of natural law is that if someone is starving and without food and the wealthy around them are unwilling to provide for them, they could take the food to sustain their needs due to the universal destination of common goods that makes providing for the destitute an obligation in the strict sense for those who have excess goods. I know that there was disagreement between Alexander of Hales and Aquinas on whether what Aquinas calls liberality was a matter of justice strictly speaking (as Hales taught) or a matter of fittingness (as Aquinas taught). That point is important here. There is a right to private property as Leo XIII affirmed, but does the universal destination of human goods impact how we think about what is and is not stealing?
If so, I wondered if a true international threat or even a grave and imminent threat to a country of 300 million people could provide a principled basis for taking control of land occupied by 56k people. From the video that I saw by the military strategist, this is not applicable to Greenland. We have other means of partnering with them in stable ways that could provide security for the US, EU, and stability to the world. If this were NOT the case and China were likely to take control of Greenland as they have increased their influence in other developing countries, do you think it would be unjust to take control of the land without making claims of ownership and with the explicit claim that this was necessary for self defense? Do you think that having the ability to monitor nuclear subs and to have significantly more response time to those subs could warrant taking control of the land in self defense? Again, this assumes imminent and grave threats (e.g. a heightened chance of nuclear war with supersonic missles that could strike major cities on the east coast in a matter of minutes). It seems to me that the answer to this is that this would be morally licit. Again the information involved in making this decision would not be entirely public and that is important in assessing the particulars that would make this scenario applicable.
So for example, my understanding of natural law is that if someone is starving and without food and the wealthy around them are unwilling to provide for them, they could take the food to sustain their needs due to the universal destination of common goods that makes providing for the destitute an obligation in the strict sense
DeleteI think St. Thomas makes use of a valid root principle but applies it without due relation to other principles, and his treatment in other contexts shows it. The basic point that the rich who have excess are obligated to help the poor, that's valid. It's the thesis that if / when some rich people decides not to help THIS poor person in need, he can just take it. It's got many problems:
1. The fact that "rich people" should help doesn't establish that it should be THIS rich person THIS poor person. If the poor starving person has 5 people he could just take from, how does he decide which one is the one who is failing his duty and take from that one? There might be many gradations of "surplus" and perhaps the poor person should have leaned on a different rich person.
2. St. Thomas himself points out that if A has had his property stolen from him by B, and A tracks down where B has it, justice does not say A may simply TAKE his property back from B. Thomas points out problems with that, e.g. if the police see A taking the property back from B, they may (understandably) think A is stealing B's property. Thomas says it belongs to the lawful authorities to judge and determine. Not A. The VERY SAME issue applies to the poor person in need, which could be initially treated as theft and could even create danger if he flees or resists arrest.
3. No person is a good judge of his own need (as no person is a good judge of justice in his own disputes). This is why we have authorities to judge. (In practice, if you are actually dying of starvation (and not just malnurished), you probably don't have the energy to do this anyway. And if you aren't at death's door, maybe you were supposed to just suffer this limitation? The room for making an error is large.)
4. Many times a poor person's need is real but not fitting to succor and he should not insist on society meeting his need. Take a drunkard who has cancer of the esophagus and a failing liver. The cancer will kill him in 6 months, but the liver will kill him in 2 weeks. He needs a liver transplant, and one becomes available for which he would be a (medically) suitable candidate (if he weren't a drunkard and didn't have cancer): he WILL die in 2 weeks without it, the need is real. It is stupid to use up this available liver on him to sustain him for the 6 months he's got to live. Society rightly says "no, we're going to put it to better use."
And it would be criminal to grant him the use of the new liver given it's his own actions that destroyed his own, if there is someone else who needs it. Which leads to:
#5. Even if the poor starving person sees what looks like excess that is just sitting around in a rich person's pantry or barn, he might be wrong: it might be food the rich person is storing to bring to the homeless shelter tonight. It might be the seed corn he needs for next spring's planting. The rich person may have already made a judgment about the poor person's need and OTHER lawful needs, and decided on meeting other needs with this surplus, as a more fitting use. He doesn't know if the rich person's judgment is right or wrong. But because God allowed the world to be such that the rich person had that wealth to use, that means it's the rich person's judgment and not the poor person's that's supposed to decide the use.
6. While it is often appropriate to just give the poor person what he needs, in other cases it's appropriate to LEND him money (or other goods) and seek for him to repay when he is able. But if he just helps himself, there's chance for the rich person to intervene with a proposal for future repayment, and the terms for it.
DeleteThe exception is where there is an emergency where the need must be met right now without time to ask the rich person, and the poor person reasonably believes that the rich person would have said "oh, yes, certainly, my surplus should be used for that", where the lack of time justifies not first asking for permission. St. Thomas explicitly references such circumstances for other judgments, and law in general allows for emergencies and "exigent circumstances" to justify something that otherwise you would have to first get permission to do, e.g. commandeering a crowbar in the person's garage to get a pinned person free from a jammed car door after an accident.
If you take what Thomas says as applying only in the emergency situation where there's no time to ask for permission, that probably fits in with everything else he says on related questions. But if you run it just in general, that messes with a LOT of other principles.
I think there’s absolutely no room for Trump to just take Greenland, not in justice. But he could probably BUY it justly: pay Denmark 10B, pay each family 200K to stay on under an American protectorate or relocate back to Denmark, 20B in total. He could probably find the money in tariffs.
Tony,
DeleteThank you for the thoughtful response. I hope to have time to read it closely and give it more thought soon.
Sorry, S.B. "there's NO chance for the rich person to intervene with a proposal for future repayment,"
DeleteDo you think that having the ability to monitor nuclear subs and to have significantly more response time to those subs could warrant taking control of the land in self defense? Again, this assumes imminent and grave threats (e.g. a heightened chance of nuclear war with supersonic missles that could strike major cities on the east coast in a matter of minutes)."
I suspect not. The usual sense of "imminent threat" is not "they have missiles that are only minutes away from our cities". That condition held for most of the cold war period: both Russia and China's missiles can reach us in 30 minutes. Having them next door (Cuba or Greenland) and only 5 minutes away doesn't change that so it becomes "imminent", not all by itself.
On the other hand, it does seem plausible for the US to insist on a "zone" outside our borders that is neutral, precisely because of the speed of modern weaponry. And include Cuba and Greenland in that, so that any direct presence or influence by Russia or China would be considered excessively provocative, and we would "take steps" to prevent. Doing just this during the Cuba missile crisis didn't force us to take over Cuba, but we did already have a base there and we reinforced it during the crisis. And we blockaded Cuba from new Soviet ships. Effectively, a modified Monroe Doctrine was upheld.
Notionally, each major power would want to have (and should be able to claim) such similar zones of neutrality. In practice, though, it's problematic: Russia demonstrated ravaging appetite toward its European neighbors, and demanding those former Bear snacks be neutral and not armed against new incursions is unreasonable. China and Taiwan present similar concerns, though the underlying facts are quite dissimilar.
Because Denmark is an ally and part of NATO, and we already have a base there, we should be able to make whatever use of Greenland we would need for military protection from Russia or China, without taking it, or a heavily forced commandeering of the shoreline. And if threat conditions BECOME imminent, we have good foundation for belief that we could renegotiate with Denmark for new arrangements on Greenland as needed at that time. Even a phone call to their president saying "hey, we want to land a division of marines at X point, is that OK?" is likely to get an approval if threat levels rise.
If the political situation changes dramatically (NATO dissolves, Denmark becomes a close ally of China, major oil reserves are discovered and new cities are built), new solutions could be needed. It's not reasonable to act definitively now on the possibilities of such changes.
Tony,
DeleteI'm not advocating for anything in particular, but I'd like to get your take on a couple of things that haven't been discussed.
First, Trump is now saying that we need Greenland for the Golden Dome defense plan. I suppose he considers it too risky to make Greenland integral to that defense system without having clear ownership. For instance, maybe some time down the road, Greenland votes to kick the US out and now the Golden Dome is useless. Does that change the calculus? Maybe it is morally superior to forgo a robust defense?
Second, no one is talking about what the Greenlanders want. All the negotiating seems to involve only Denmark and some other EU countries. Isn't Greenland Self-Governing? If it is, then why does Denmark insist that the US is trying to take its possession? Why can't the US negotiate directly with Greenland and see if they can offer a superior protection deal than Denmark?
It seems that many in the Inuit population aren't happy with how they've been treated by the Danish:
https://nypost.com/2026/01/16/world-news/greenlanders-speak-out-against-danish-rule-they-stole-our-future/
The article concludes that most Greenlanders don't want to be owned by anyone but see the US interest as increasing their ability to cut a better deal.
If you don't understand that the Greenlanders don't want to be part of America, then you haven't been paying attention.
Deletehttps://time.com/7345221/trump-greenland-statement-denmark/
It's been all over the news. Most of them would prefer to be independent, and yes, they have legitimate historical grievances against the Danes, but it's absurd to claim that this means they want to be Americans. They obviously don't. And frankly, for a Native American population, about the last thing it should want to deal with is the United States government.
EXE,
DeleteSince no one claimed Greenlanders wanted to be Americans why did you comment?
Does that change the calculus? Maybe it is morally superior to forgo a robust defense?
DeleteAs a general principle: moral defense entails that the actions taken are good in themselves or at least neutral: you can kill an unjust aggressor attacking you, to defend yourself, but you cannot kill an innocent bystander as the means to prevent or foil the attack. BUT you are morally permitted to allow an unjust attack against you to succeed, e.g. if the only means you have to stop it is an intrinsically evil means. So, generically, there is nothing morally offensive about a defensive strategy that is less than robust, if the only thing that would change it into robust is an evil action.
To specifics: the Golden Dome is, at this time, a strategic idea, not a nationally committed program well on its way. Congress has not authorized a dime for it. Even if / when Congress does, there is no guarantee that it will be finished (as other complex programs have failed). And there is no definitive determination that the only way it could be a worthwhile shield is to base it on Greenland: what if we got Canada to help out? Or just put the needed bases in the US and accept a bit of lesser time to respond? (That's what we will need to do on our western and southern borders anyway, we sure aren't going to get Mexico to allow us bases there.) And if the only way it could possibly be worthwhile is to have bases on Greenland, (a) either we could negotiate in good faith with Denmark (and Greenland) for the rights to do so (e.g., with formal rights to retain such bases in perpetuity, as we have for Gitmo), or (b) we could / should morally decide "well, we just can't execute that particular defense strategy, we should seek another." There's lots of strategies that are similarly thinkable but not feasible or moral.
Isn't Greenland Self-Governing?
Yes and no: it handles most internal matters. Denmark sets it foreign policy, defense, and constitutional matters. As we do with Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
Why can't the US negotiate directly with Greenland and see if they can offer a superior protection deal than Denmark?
In theory, the US could intrude into Greenland and offer it a chance at true self-determination, and maybe even the US could make a referendum stick. But an attempt to do so would constitute defying virtually all other countries' agreements (including our own, up to now) that Denmark "owns" / controls Greenland as a semi-autonomous territorial possession, and would thus be implicitly an act of war. It is implausible that the rest of the world could be convinced to formally accept this with NO fighting. And there's no just cause for such a war. And even if we did offer Greenland self-determination, they might well reject joining the US.
Tony,
DeleteThe reason I brought up the Golden Dome was because you mentioned that we should keep the status quo until an imminent threat appeared. I think Trump mentioned it at a press briefing after you posted that remark. It seems that you allow that proactive defense is morally acceptable rather than merely reacting to attacks. Thanks.
I've read that only about 8% of Greenlanders oppose independence from Denmark under all circumstances. Opinions vary on the timing and conditions for independence. Denmark passed the Home Rule Act of 1979 which would honor Greenlanders vote for independence. If Greenlanders cannot discuss possible future relationships with countries other than Denmark, then how can they address replacing the things they rely on Denmark for? Seems like they're locked into dependence on Denmark whether they like it or not.
So what are you saying, bmiller? You brought up the fact that "nobody is asking what the Greenlanders want" and claimed that they were unhappy with their treatment , that sure sounds like you're making a claim that the welfare of Greenlanders is relevant. What are you getting at then, if not that? That you don't give a shit about their opinions and want to steal their land whether they want that or not? Because if it's that, then you're an imperialist shitbag. Please help me understand what part of this moral equation you can't comprehend.
Deletethat we should keep the status quo until an imminent threat appeared. I think Trump mentioned it at a press briefing after you posted that remark.
DeleteThis is another area where Trump's tendency to exaggerate wildly - or lie outright and baldfaced - does him a disservice: he SAYS "imminent threat" from Russia and China polar activity, but he can't point to anything they are doing that is, precisely, an imminent threat, and leaves it vague and generic. The US spent 45 years with the Soviet Union doing stuff in the arctic without it requiring us to grab Greenland. If Trump's not just bloviating pure BS, he needs to explain details, not just claim. I don't believe him at this point.
It seems that you allow that proactive defense is morally acceptable rather than merely reacting to attacks.
Interesting collation of terms. "Defense" is, at first meaning, acting to stop someone invading or attacking you. And it can include preparing for a future attack on you. But the kinds of things permitted for an attack that is taken within your own country, and the things you are permitted to take in someone else's country aren't equally called "defense" without looking at circumstances. Trump can't build a base in Morocco because it would help us defend ourselves should war come. Or a base in China, for that matter. "Proactive" defense that is morally licit still has to take into account whether you are CURRENTLY under attack, or whether IMMINENT THREAT has been made, or whether the risk of harm is long-range and inchoate. It isn't morally licit just because it would be effective if an attack came.
EXE,
DeleteI'm interested in getting Tony's opinion since he is someone who is well informed and willing to give thoughtful responses. You can continue to intrude with your irrelevant posts or quietly follow along, but don't expect me to respond to any more of your screeds.
Tony,
DeleteI don't disagree that Trump exaggerates profusely. If I got a nickel for ever time he said "No one's ever seen anything like it!" I'd be in a high tax bracket. But we're all aware of that by now. So it seems to me the only way to discuss this is by using conditionals like, "If he is right then A is true and if he is wrong B is true." If he is correct, then what is morally permissible, etc.
I would count US weapons, bases, troops and command and control in Europe as part of a "proactive defense" as well as those in other areas of the world that the US owns or leases. We have a naval base in Rota Spain for example that is not currently under attack, imminently threatened but is part of a perceived long-range and inchoate threat. To be honest, we put troops in Europe originally to occupy after WW2 and then to protect Europe from the former Soviet Union. Germany has been de-Nazified for a long time now and the Soviet Union fell apart 35 years ago. Should we have troops in Europe?
So it seems to me the only way to discuss this is by using conditionals like,
DeleteFair enough, and I did exactly that in some comments about the Venezuela actions.
I would count US weapons, bases, troops and command and control in Europe as part of a "proactive defense"
I would too. Throughout most of Europe we put troops there at their express request or preference. In Germany, of course, it was originally as an occupying force, but that's long gone and in West Germany they wanted our troops there for decades as part of a defense system. So, none of it was like imposing our presence by force on allies.
Germany has been de-Nazified for a long time now and the Soviet Union fell apart 35 years ago. Should we have troops in Europe?
Given the 4 years of war in the Ukraine: maybe? I don't honestly know if our presence is worth it. Having grown up during the cold war, I have assumed a US-bolstered Europe is better than one that goes all...balkanized? The US paid a big price in WWII, but it was FAR smaller price than Europe did, and we basically benefited hugely from Britain keeping the war over there. I don't claim a definite answer. The last 6 presidents thought so.
The price of freedom is vigilance. There's such a thing as too much, or too little, and both have their detriments. If we cannot afford the exported proactive defense (with approval of our allies) that we've been doing (as a sort of pax Americana), then we might perforce expend a lot on reactive defense right on our borders, and still be unable to conduct vigorous global trade.
I don't see a real moral quandary here: yes, if we don't have a strong presence on Greenland, there might be some risks down the road that are excessively risky. But there are plenty of other options besides taking it from our allies. So we should try other means.
Tony,
DeleteWell it's looking like the US will not be purchasing or invading Greenland. Instead the US will be granted a perpetual right to build and operate military installations there. I suspect the mineral deal was negotiated on the premise that that would pay for the expense of the installations. I don't see a moral quandary in this arrangement if all parties agree, right? (Leaving aside Trump's initial behavior.) Now can I expect to see rabid leftists turn their rage against Denmark for being unrepentant colonizing imperialists? Not holding my breath.
I too grew up during the Cold War and was conditioned to believe that Pax Americana was the best thing ever. But plenty of Europeans grew to resent the US if they didn't originally. I remember talking to French citizen I was working with when the EU came into existence and asked him how he felt about joining up with Germany, a country that the French fought in numerous wars. His response was that, well if we don't do it, then the US calls all the shots.
Europe has long since economically recovered from WW2 and should be able to provide for its own defense. I suppose the benefit the US gets from staying in Europe is they are less likely to kill each other. The cost is higher taxes to the US taxpayer and the danger of the EU getting into fights they would normally try to avoid. A "let's he and you fight" situation. Plus their government is becoming more and more totalitarian toward their citizens. May be time to pull back and let them sort things out. Maybe by now they don't hate each other as much to keep going to war with each other.
I don't see a moral quandary in this arrangement if all parties agree, right? (Leaving aside Trump's initial behavior.)
DeleteAgreed, as to both points. Lying, and threats of doing immoral actions, are both wrong.
His response was that, well if we don't do it, then the US calls all the shots.
It is one of the basic, inevitable, but also partially distasteful, aspects of human nature, that when one rises to a commanding presence, others will arise to try to nip at his heels. Applies to men in power, and to countries with overwhelming influence. I say qualify it as "partially distasteful" because while this human tendency comes partly from envy and the cantankerousness of "I want what I want, not what he tells me I can have", it also arises in part from reasonable distrust of the one who holds great power. Those who hold great power often go astray (though I absolutely repudiate the meme that "absolute power corrupts absolutely"), and vigilance about their misuse of power is necessary. And the US was no pure vanilla hero during the post-war decades - even if we did some great goods.
Plus their government is becoming more and more totalitarian toward their citizens.
There is commentary by a portion of the talking heads division that what Trump is doing is (in part) insulating America a plausible (claimed: almost certainty) that Europe will be Muslim within a generation, and no longer any sort of even quasi-ally of the US & western style freedom. Then their allowing organizational (bureaucratic) forms of extensive top-down control will play into VERY anti-liberal forces within their nations. I doubt that this projected future for Europe is strongly probable (much less a certainty), and I don't think that even if it was strongly probable that would excuse presidential overreach by Trump in arrogating to himself powers he doesn't have under the Constitution, nor immoral methods of realpolitik.
Maybe by now they don't hate each other as much to keep going to war with each other.
I do think that the Muslim incursions (and some other factors) have caused massive disturbances to their supposed conformity with a strongly liberal EU core ideal, and they would discover their differences (fracture lines) are more important to them if they were left free to not have to consider America, Russia, and China. I fear both extremes are feasible: balkanization, or unification under a totalitarian regime. There are too many variables (and options for actors to change variables) to predict anything.
I was working with a smaller British company while Brexit was going on. I asked the president what his take on it was. He said that it wouldn't affect his company that much because he had factories in a country in the EU and another branch in the UK. He did mention that UK citizens complained about Brussel bureaucrats regulating what kind of toothpaste you could buy and so on. That's what I meant by becoming more totalitarian. I'm sure you also read about the woman who was arrested for "praying in her head" outside an abortion clinic in the UK as well as people getting arrested for social media posts. Although they don't have a First Amendment, they never used to restrict peoples thoughts this severely. Not sure what any of that has to do with Trump overreaching though.
DeleteLooking at some of the “Might Makes Right” stuff on Twitter is pretty disturbing. I would be interested to know whether these people think might makes right on the level of individual morality too—here both Thrasymachus and Callicles are more consistent.
ReplyDeleteI think it's worth mentioning that the Church's just war principles are really just an application of basic moral reasoning to questions of war:
ReplyDelete- Is the action being carried out by the right person or persons?
- Is the reason for carrying out the act proper and well-intentioned?
- Is the action carried out in the right way?
Also, given there is violence, death, and upheaval involved, there are the additional questions of:
- Is the good to be attained worth the cost and chance of failure?
- Have other means that don't result in such death and destruction been reasonably exhausted?
The first three questions are applicable to pretty much any moral act. The latter two kick in because we are in a situation where there is substantial weight given to the principle of double effect due to the violence involved. All of them are, I think, fairly reasonable and inoffensive questions, though maybe not always straightforward in application.
Just war is not some special category of morality built up on esoteric principles. Rather, it is the same moral principles we always use, applied with a certain scrutiny and specificity to violence and combat. So the question of whether what was done in Venezuela is "big enough" to count as a war is, at a certain point, not terribly important. Was the action, whatever we might call it, consonant with reason as specified by the questions given above?
This is a good point. It is plausible to suggest that violent self-defense and police use of force are other categories in the same genus, and that related moral structures apply to all three.
DeleteConservatives should watch the video, "Was U.S. Intervention in Venezuela Necessary? Franklin Camargo Speaks Out" at www.prageru.com to understand why conservative governments in Central and South American nations approve of Trump's actions. The video is nearly an hour long but worth it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why other country approving shows that it was necessary.
DeletePragerU has zero credibility. They're a propaganda outlet.
DeleteGenetic Fallacy
DeleteNot necessarily. Would you trust anything that came from Pravda? There's plenty of reason to be skeptical of a heavily biased source with a long history of poor content.
DeleteYes necessarily.
DeleteThe genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source or origin rather than their content.
WCB
ReplyDeletePope Nicholas V Mandated the king of Portugal to conquer the Pagan and Islamic nations of South West Africa, confiscate their movable goods, and to subject their citizens to permanent servitude. See the Papal Bulls Dum Diversus and Pontifex Maximus for details. Later popes upheld these bulls.
WCB
Which is why Catholics should confront and condemn that part of their history. It needs to be faced, but unfortunately a lot of Catholics (including in the Hierarchy) are more comfortable with denial, or whitewashing, or choosing to ignore that part of history. The worst of them even defend it. I notice that this is a similar attitude to the one that fueled the Clerical Sex Abuse Crisis - namely, a reflexive and uncritical desire to protect the reputation of the Institutional Church, even if that requires heaping injustice atop injustice. Actually, this is a problem with Catholics more generally - a refusal to engage honestly with history, and a preference instead for revisionism, cherry-picking, and pleasant fictions.
DeleteFor instance, popular apologetic treatments of the Catholic Church's relationship with slavery will usually present only the Catholics who were ardent abolitionists, ignoring the fact that they were usually anomalies in their time, or that they only opposed certain kinds of slavery. I'll acknowledge that the Church was also not uniformly malevolent and pro-slavery, but an honest evaluation would still make the Church look pretty bad - generally complicit through their concern with justifying and upholding the status quo, with some attempts made to improve the material lot of slaves. It's not until the 1830s or so, after abolitionist sentiment became widespread in Western culture at large, that you will find general consensus emerge in the Church against slavery. I just wish more Catholics were honest about these facts.
I would recommend Christopher Kellerman's book "All Oppression Shall Cease" for a more detailed treatment of the topic.
https://orbisbooks.com/products/all-opression-shall-cease-a-history-of-slavery-abolitionism-and-the-catholic-church
MP, Jan. 15, 1:40
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ciris.info/articles/the-ethical-justification-behind-the-use-of-atomic-weapons-in-world-war-ii/
The article references the fierce fanaticism of the Japanese military. The firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed almost 100,000 people. But Japan fought on and didn't surrender until five months later after the atomic bombs were used.
It also references American island hopping campaign and the horrific fighting at Okinawa and other islands. My uncle was a Marine who fought in Okinawa. He told me the Japs would burrow into tunnels and even when told by American interpreters that if they didn't surrender they would be burned out, they chose to die. My uncle was fully prepared for the land invasion of Japan. He was grateful that the war ended when it did.
As for Ms. Anscombe, Fr. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C. a Professor of History at Notre Dame, comes to the defense of Truman and his decision to used the atomic bomb:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4422/
This comment isn't directly on point with this posting, but I think it is still relevant. And so I will respond to Professor Miscamble: in this historical article, he show fine historical capability. As a moral argument, his article shows a fine historical capability: that is, it isn't much - if any - of a moral argument at all. Certainly not as Catholic (and generally all Christian) moralists have grasped the issues.
DeleteStart with St. Paul's teaching (Rom. 3:8) "do not do evil that good should come of it". This is an elaboration of a prior, more general, "do not do evil." But moralists recognize that both declarations require careful understanding of what "doing evil" is meant by these. In fleshing out the teaching, we discover that sometimes what only appears to be "doing evil" is not really doing evil, (e.g. punishing evildoers, which God does: it seems to be "doing them an evil" but here "an evil" is an equivocal usage). And other times we discover that something that really is A KIND of "doing evil" is not "doing evil" in the RELEVANT SENSE and does run afoul of St. Paul's teaching. These clarifications are what the teachings for both the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) and the teaching for (moral) Cooperation with Evil (CoE) do: they tell us when an act is good or permissible even though at first it might have the appearance of being a "doing evil".
There's no doubt that Prof. Miscamble is aware of Truman's act as "an evil" in some sense:
I suggest that, in retrospect and within the privacy of his heart, Truman likely understood that he had been forced by necessity to enter into evil. And so, I argue in my book, he had.
While the professor denies being a consequentialist, he undermines his disclaimer fairly clearly.
(a) Is it really “moral” to stand aside, maintaining one’s supposed moral purity, while a vast slaughter is occurring at the rate of over two hundred thousand deaths a month? Isn’t there a terrible dilemma here, namely, which innocent lives to save?
(b) but many of this large number were killed by aggressive American air and artillery bombardments used, without particular regard for civilian casualties, as the American forces sought to dislodge an established enemy that refused to surrender. These harsh tactics could not meet Tollefsen’s criteria with regard to means. Given his unbending approach on moral absolutes, I assume he would condemn the action; but just what military means would he support in trying to defeat a foe that considered surrender the ultimate disgrace and who fought accordingly?
The simple answer to the professor is this: St. Paul does not teach "do not ALLOW evil to be done", he teaches "do not DO evil". If the primary principle were "do not allow evil to be done" then he would be right to prefer the option that RESULTS in the least evil being done, regardless of WHO are the doers of the evils. But it isn't. The principle is "do not be ONE WHO DOES EVIL", regardless of what those around you are doing. Since, pretty much by his own statements, he more regards the results - the consequences - of what all "is done" all together, he is a consequentialist. Tollefson (and Christian moralists in general) would easily, though with great grief, have been able to reply "yes, we should have taken on an invasion of Japan with 30 times the casualties before doing moral evil. The deaths WE inflict in the process aren't "doing moral evil" and thus do not violate the prohibition "do not do evil" in the relevant sense. The deaths someone ELSE does while we are acting (and trying to stop them) are their responsibility, not our own. The root principle doesn't make us responsible to stop others' morally evil acts and the unkindly results of such acts. It attends to OUR acts: do not DO evil.
Jesus allowed evil to be done, to himself, and to his apostles, and to his disciples and followers. He expressly intended to allow these, even though he could have stopped any or all of them.
The United States will end up murdering many more of its citizens, non-white mostly and the few white women and men of conscience that stand up to this regime. It will house immigrants in camps and systematically - through its indifference and violence - see them killed. At first, it will be exactly as now - double digit deaths due to negligence and cruelty- but will increase massively as these people are rounded ip and the capacity to hold them decreases.
ReplyDeleteAll while lengthy rationalizations more subtle than the Disputations themselves will be written by commenters here. This man is currently destabilizing the whole world, and attacking his own country but has found the group that hates his country just as much as he does - the people that wrap themselves in flags and the bible. 80% of you think invading Latin America as a whole is right and just. Check the polls. Incredible.
The same amount think the recent investigations of the Fed Chair, James and now Walz are all legitimate and w/o malice.
No one needed a real example of how the Reich came to power and were able to murder so many people, nor an example how you could acquiesce to and allow the enslavement of human beings right in front of your door. But here we are - the same forces, with the same arguments, and the same population allowing their neighbors to be brutalized for the same contemptible
lies and ideology. It is a truly dark and depressing time.
This is the kind of nonsense rhetoric that compels people to interfere in law enforcement, placing themselves at risk.
DeleteDeporting illegals is lawful. It's always been done and Trump isn't doing anything unique except doing it more. He hasn't attacked his own country. The murder rate in DC has completely collapsed just by having national guard just standing around. They aren't restricting people or anything. He's basically been vindicated on that point.
What murders are you talking about? There is no systematic murdering going on (except for decades of abortion). Get yourself together.
In 15 years, they will all claim they never supported Trump.
DeleteAnonymous January 16, 2026 at 5:58 PM,
DeleteWhat does this have to do with Greenland?
In fact most commenters here who you claim "wrap themselves in flags and the bible" agree with Feser and disagree with the administrations threat to take Greenland by force. As do most Americans by a large margin.
Maybe you meant to comment at a different blog post.
@second Anonymous:
Delete"Deporting illegals is lawful"
Maybe, but traditionally it is not performed by trigger-happy masked thugs with less than two months of training. There is no justification for many of the actions ICE has been carrying out. Your insistence on framing this as innocent professionals being assaulted and prevented from executing their lawful duties by crazed terrorists suggests that you are consuming extremely biased media coverage. Just because ICE are a legal organization doesn't mean they can do anything they like. Something like 170 legal citizens have been detained despite being, well, legal. About two-thirds of the people held in "Alligator Alcatraz" cannot be accounted for - they've simply disappeared. If that doesn't worry you...
"He hasn't attacked his own country."
I guess this is true if you don't consider Minneapolis et al to be a part of America. Ask the people over there whether they feel like they're being attacked. Or do you know their situation better than them?
"The murder rate in DC has completely collapsed just by having national guard just standing around."
Trivially true. Of course the criminals aren't going to be dumb enough to pull anything serious when there are thousands of soldiers patrolling the streets. That doesn't actually get rid of crime. Either they'll go underground and wait for the soldiers to leave, or if the occupation becomes permanent they'll find ways to infiltrate and operate within their presence. Plus, do you think it's a good idea to use the military as police in the long term?
"What murders are you talking about? There is no systematic murdering going on"
Renee Good is not a person, apparently. Oh wait, she was totally about to run that guy over. Yeah, I believe that. Of course. Not to mention that ICE has shot at least 11 people since September (just five months). There's also deaths in custody, like Geraldo Luis Campos, who was asphyxiated in a detention camp.
Ignore all of these if you like. Maybe you can stomach that level of bias, those double standards. I find it hard to do.
*Country allows notoriously unpopular Israeli government to commit war crimes and arguably genocide--carries water for said government works to actively neutralize any criticism of it on the international stage as well as censor and monitor any criticism or allegations of conflicts from its own voters with ill-faith allegations of antisemitism.*
DeleteAfter doing this said country is. . . just like the Nazis?
Putting a different group on the bottom of the race hierarchy instead of Jews doesn't automatically absolve you of the charge of being like the Nazis. The problem with Nazism has always been, yknow, the racism and genocide, not just the fact that one specific group was targeted.
DeleteThe popularity of such outrageous views among people who profess to be Christian should raise serious questions about the health of American Christianity generally.
ReplyDeleteWhile your main point (that Catholic history does not support the invasion of Greenland) is obviously correct, I'd like to also get your opinion on that history itself, Ed. Do you regard those arguments as having merit? Do you think Catholics ought to totally repudiate those parts of history? For instance, one of the arguments listed is the claim that it's OK to colonize people if they fail to meet a certain standard of sociopolitical organization, material and social development, etc. That seems extraordinarily problematic for many reasons - for one, it claims that only states have the right to land, not people, and of course there's the fact that the question of what counts as "sufficient development" is completely arbitrary. It seems trivially easy to simply define your own style of civilization as the best, then declare all others primitive by virtue of their failure to live up to your standard. It seems like a moral standard tailor-made to permit Portugal and Spain to do what they wanted to do and were already doing, like a kind of moral question-begging.
ReplyDeleteBasically, what I'm asking is this: do you personally agree with those traditional arguments regarding things such as colonization et al? I know you're a traditionalist, but I don't know if you're the kind of trad who insists that absolutely every moral decision the Church ever made must be upheld no matter what.
Do you think Catholics ought to totally repudiate those parts of history? For instance, one of the arguments listed is the claim that it's OK to colonize people if they fail to meet a certain standard of sociopolitical organization, material and social development, etc.
DeleteIs it intelligible to "repudiate history"? What would it mean - to say "that history didn't happen? Or did you mean to ask about repudiating claims made and rationales offered?
Is it possible that some aspects of rationales are valid and other aspects are not, and that some aspects are capable of being matters of degree, where they are more applicable to some situations and less to others? If so, is it possible that "the colonization" should be treated as many distinct colonizations, and that different answers might apply to different ones? After all, it seems plausible that the affairs of the thief and thug named Pizzaro were of a different character than that of the priest Junipero Serra.
It seems trivially easy to simply define your own style of civilization as the best,
It is easy, but far from trivial, to have as a stated premise that "some civilization compatible with what I understand is the only true religion" is, all other matters aside, a better condition than other civilizations, without thereby concluding that EVERY social condition which acknowledges my religion is better than EVERY social condition that does not do so. But nuance seems foreign to your prospects, so I doubt you'll recognize the stacked questions you ask.
By "repudiate" I mean "denounce". Say "that was wrong and we should not have done it". As for your actual comment, it seems like you're trying to defend the idea that there can be "good" colonization. The examples you choose suggest that you think that doing so as a means of evangelisation is one of them. Please feel free to elaborate on what you think a "good" colonisation would look like. And as for the second remark, I was making the point that it is exceptionally easy to be an arrogant shithead and decide that your people know best. Could it maybe, hypothetically be true that some cultures are better than others on some issues? Subjective, but I'll grant the possibility. But it is exceptionally dangerous to do so, just like it is dangerous to list the virtues that make you better than others.
DeleteHey, Ex, should the rest of the world have intervened in Rwanda when they were engaged in their genocidal war between 2 tribes? Or was that off limits, imposing our standards of civilization on them. Should the North have been willing to enforce no-slavery upon the South by war, or was that imposing the North's view of "social development" on the South and wrong? But more generally, when there's a law that some like and others don't, isn't the mere fact of the law a situation where those who want that law are imposing their view of civilized society on those who don't want it? So, should we get rid of all law?
DeleteOr, did you want to live in society, which means with laws?
Well, you're not making your point super clearly, but I assume you're trying to argue that colonialism is not inherently evil. Well, I would suggest that even if that is a hypothetical possibility, the amount of evil it does is both much greater and much more likely to happen than any amount of putative good. I'd suggest that is supported by any reasonable reading of the history of colonialism. If you want to know what that's really like, take the point of view of the colonized people and ask them what colonialism is truly like.
Deletebut I assume you're trying to argue that colonialism is not inherently evil.
DeleteNo, you missed. But not by too terribly far, I suppose. Intervention by others, who decide their standards are better than those they intervene upon - that's what's not inherently evil.
If you want to know what that's really like, take the point of view of the colonized people and ask them what colonialism is truly like.
Are you even slightly well read in history? All of us come from a people that got pushed around by invaders / colonizers. 'Cuz everyone pushed almost everyone else around when they could, at one point or another, and then later got pushed around. E.G. In one area: Hittites, then Babylonians, then Persians, then Greeks, then Romans, then Ummayads, then Arabs...
just like it is dangerous to list the virtues that make you better than others.
DeleteTurn the question around: is it dangerous to NOT list (for yourself) the vices that make you worse than others? Probably. (At the least, it means living life unexamined, which (as Socrates said) is not worth living.)
Then push the envelop, and ask what defects you have that make you less than what you could be, your shortcomings by which you fall short of an ideal that is an ideal applicable to you because it is an ideal applicable to everyone. To consider this honestly will by its nature expose shortcomings of many others.
Which doesn't mean you have to point them out to everyone. But some are called to be prophets (St. Paul, Ephesians, 4:11), meant to point out shortcomings, not for their own purposes, but for God's.
Anon, come on. If you're not going to engage with me seriously, then I'm going to stop bothering. You have continuously refused to address my actual points, instead you dodge them and reframe the discussion in a way that's more favorable to you. I asked you to consider the atrocities, trauma, and violence inflicted on colonized population by the ones doing the colonizing. Instead of thinking about that, you scoffed and claimed that "everyone does that", effectively glossing over the horror and pretending it's not there, or that nobody is "really" guilty of it. None of that can silence the blood of the innocent crying out to Heaven. Then, when I pointed out the dangers of national hubris, you refused to even think about it and instead reframed again, this time claiming that actually, YOU are the moral one, and that you're only asking people to examine their own flaws...and then see them in other people. I notice that you also smuggled in further assumptions here; claiming that because someone thinks his morality is applicable to everyone, he is therefore justified in imposing it on others. First, this is a huge assumption; how can he really know that the standards he holds himself to are universal? This sounds like exactly the kind of hubris I was talking about. More importantly, you're ignoring how people ACTUALLY act. Even a hypothetical enlightened philosopher would struggle to be certain that his conclusions are universally applicable, and in reality, the vast majority of times where these kinds of judgments happen they are nothing more than reflexive bigotry, because people are generally disposed to be hostile towards outsiders and have unjustifiably negative opinions of them. You ignore all of this and pretend it doesn't exist. Engage honestly, or don't engage at all.
DeleteEd, I appreciate your X about Pacem et Terris, but some conservatives don't think healthcare is a right as good Pope John did:
ReplyDeletePope John XXIII, in his encyclical, Peace on Earth (Pacem in Terris), issued in 1963, presents in a definite, clear, and brief manner the right to medical care. He states that “every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are necessary and suitable for the proper development of life.” He continues, “these means are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services.
Thank you for posting my comment about Pacem et Terris and healthcare.
DeleteBy including "food, clothing, shelter, rest" with medical care, it is clear that Pope John did not mean it is the kind of right PROVIDED by the government, but that people have equal rights, protected by the government, to pursue these and obtain them through their normal efforts within the social sphere of markets, commercial and private organizations, churches, etc.
DeleteYes, Tony, but the federal government plays a crucial role, especially in heath care, with Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
DeleteIndeed it does. It plays a crucial role also in food safety, creation of transportation networks; in fair housing laws, deductions for mortgage interest...
DeleteWhenever you post something critiquing the administration, Prof, Another theologian like Dr Chad Pecknold posts something in favour of the administration.
ReplyDeleteI have much respect for both of you.
I greatly appreciate that you are giving reasons from the classical natural law tradition, while Dr Pecknold basically is providing none.
But since he is reputed, you can see how an average Catholic spectator inclined to favour Trump might just conclude, "Sure Dr Feser, has put out a detailed critique, but Dr Pecknold with his reputation for orthodoxy might have his reasons as well"
Wouldn't it be possible for both of you, to have some kind of written discourse in the post liberal magazine which you both write for about this ? Where both of ya'll could marshall arguments. Like the kind you used to do in Public Discourse with John Finnis
Such an endeavour could be of great benefit to readers because right now there is just confusion.
Well, the paid globalist’s agitators are now in Greenland. Those people protesting the attempted annexation (actually liberation and protection) are part of the internal and external insurgency - in collaboration with the Islamists and Socialists/Communists - to take down Western civilization. This is the picture reading some of the comments here. Your worldviews are anchored by such falsehoods and nonsense, I don’t know how, even one of your own, speaking with moral clarity about this, reaches you.
ReplyDeleteThe globalist, Islamist federation of socialist and communists against Western Civilization has spoken:
ReplyDelete“Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom
Published 18 January 2026
As members of NATO, we are committed to strengthening Arctic security as a shared transatlantic interest. The pre-coordinated Danish exercise „Arctic Endurance“ conducted with Allies, responds to this necessity. It poses no threat to anyone.
We stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland. Building on the process begun last week, we stand ready to engage in a dialogue based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that we stand firmly behind.
Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral. We will continue to stand united and coordinated in our response. We are committed to upholding our sovereignty.“
Hey, Anon, I have a genuine question. Do you actually think? Or do you just parrot slogans? I'm genuinely having a hard time believing that anyone is actually stupid enough to believe the things you say. This is parody, right? You can't ACTUALLY believe that the people of Greenland and Denmark are all paid actors of George Soros, can you? And please, do explain to me how Islamo-Communism rules Western Europe. How does that work? Don't see any of those leaders seeking to abolish private ownership of the means of production or implementing Sharia Law. So, how does that work?
DeleteThat was sarcasm, Exe. I know it gets difficult with all the anons but that was meant as parody. Depressingly, it is exactly how some in this very thread think.
DeleteThanks for telling me, because I genuinely couldn't tell. I've met Catholics who talk like this unironically.
DeleteTrump said he will impose tariffs on Europe unless it gives us Greenland. Does anyone think Trump is sane?
ReplyDeleteSo we are clear on what this comment section is defending - whether belligerently or the ‘just asking questions’ feint, here are the POTUS words to Norway.
ReplyDelete“Dear Jonas:
Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”
Anyone reading now or decades later, there was no excuse. Everyone knew and yet went along rationalizing it, anyway.
Anonymous January 19, 2026 at 2:23 PM,
DeleteWhat exactly did everyone know and yet went along rationalizing it, anyway?
This comment section has been on both sides of the issue. You're not very observant.
DeleteApparently Bishop Broglio read your article . Or it may just be that he is a faithful Catholic like you and arrived at the same conclusion.
ReplyDeleteProf even if there was substantially more that was obtained from the threats, it still does not justify the threats right
ReplyDeleteHe enjoys a following sixty times greater than yours, and his post has twice the views, yet your reply drew more likes—and rightly so. As the kids say nowadays, this is what we call getting “ratio’d.”
ReplyDeleteA truly just war requires proper authority, just cause (defending against aggression), and right intention, serving love, not hatred.
ReplyDeleteKey aspects Aquinas's Just War Theory:
Defense of the Innocent: The primary purpose is protecting innocent life, treating it as an act of love and a step toward peace.
Strict Criteria: emphasizes that jus ad bellum requirements—right intention, just cause, and authority—must all be met simultaneously.
Proportionality: The war cannot cause more damage than the evil it is stopping, which is a key consideration given modern destructive capabilities.
Context: While promoting peace, the theory recognizes the need to defend against evil in a "fallen world".
Relevant Summa Theologiae Context:
Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae (II-II, Q. 40) stipulates that war requires a sovereign's authority, a just cause, and a rightful intention to advance good or avoid evil.
Aquinas allows for necessary deception (ambush) in a just war, provided it does not involve breaking a promise or telling a lie.
I have argued that war tactics by Western World adversaries include:
State-Sponsored Manipulation: Governments orchestrate or facilitate migrant flows to their adversaries' borders
Hybrid Warfare: Uses migration as a weapon to sow discord, challenge sovereignty, and achieve objectives below the threshold of war.
Objectives:
Political: Create internal divisions, weaken governments, influence elections, or force policy changes.
Economic: Strain social services, demand resources, or create economic instability.
Militarized: Disrupt border security, potentially embed operatives, or create security challenges.
Tactics:
Forced Mass Migration: Creating sudden influxes
Disinformation: Spreading false narratives about migrants to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment.
Exploiting Existing Flows: Amplifying existing migration crises.
I have argued the big picture of this current world justifies incremental application applying all the just war criteria in unison to justify each incremental decision. As i have argued the changing nature of warfare since the end of the Cold War (as anonymous 2) requires an incremental use of dialogue and military intervention to assure good and piece considering the overall situation (which I have called the big picture in previous posts).
I again recommend the new book bringing forth evidence of the intentional use of weaponized immigaration. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/unti9780063422506_anon9780063422506/56199418/item/85777092/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_new_condition_books_high_14637440387&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=593819619485&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=14637440387&gbraid=0AAAAADwY45gVtjoEwKybi1m_9n8sHf4UP&gclid=Cj0KCQiA1czLBhDhARIsAIEc7ug2yZUvv2iiF_dZNoAC8lYmY4KMSDxxR6jHfeq8-S30Y4WC309gGloaAn2REALw_wcB#idiq=85777092&edition=73816202
I have also argued Trumps's actions against so far are morally justified with this article because of the context in our current global situation (big picture): https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/trump-crushes-narco-socialism-in-venezuela-a-victory-for-life-and-the-church/
Walsh's x account is sixty times larger than Feser's, and his post enjoys double the views, yet he has nearly one thousand fewer likes. As the kids say nowadays, he got "ratio'd" to outer space.
ReplyDeleteAlso, not exactly related, but another item in the big long list of crimes - apparently Trump has sequestered 300 million dollars made from sale of Venezuelan oil in a Qatari bank account kept in his own name. In other words, it's now his own private property. If that's not corruption, I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteMP and EXE. I know you are repudiating out of hand my claim there is an intentional organized initiative to destroy the West through weaponized immigration by countries and organizations supporting this objective.
ReplyDeleteThankyou for unjustly calling me jingoistic, expansionist and a sophist. The reward in heaven is great for those unjustly accused who rejoice for the sake of Christ's mission. My aim is to serve Him only. He is the King of the Universe and governs it all. The aim of my arguments and actions are to co-create the world in love transforming it to reflect the Glory of His Kingdom in the light oof authentic Catholic Church teachings.
If you are at all open my point of view, check out another well argued and documented book that is new this week on Amazon. It is the current bestseller on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Coup-American-Foreign-Immigration/dp/0063422506/ref=sr_1_5_sspa?crid=SVZW74O04AE8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.la4D_SqXUqkjZJZLCyGH3uY4DG-JnOp_VnHiVS3OgtbGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.GxBGs4lbgIfMw-afZ4QI1D2MFmInDKtAMpTxd86JYyY&dib_tag=se&keywords=weaponized+immigration&qid=1769203133&sprefix=weaponized+immigration%2Caps%2C133&sr=8-5-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9tdGY&psc=1
Not that this applies to EXE's prior accusation of criminal acts by Trump which I am waiting for reliable details on, but MP, it is not true that stealing or lying are universally judged as immoral. Consider the actual Nazi's in WWII. There are arguments that from the previous experience of Nazi atrocities when you consider the three elements that judge the immorality of an act that lying to protect people from the Nazi's capture and stealing Nazi assets to provide for these people's escape can be judged as moral acts.
Check out my paper on Nominalism and its devastating effect on moral judgement through the heresies of Modernism afffecting Western, socialist and communist cultures today. Click on myname and you will go to my website. I use Ed Feser as an expert source on nominalism many places in the paper.
Islam also has heretical roots stemming from a heretical bishop in northern Africa that greatly influenced Mohammed. He was quite a murderer in his day and his doctrine in the Quran supports it.
Europe certainly is under threat from mass non-Western migration. But the United States has the luxury of being "invaded" by millions and millions of people from Catholic countries. I have no sympathy for those un-Christian lobbies that hate these people
DeleteI have not read that book but here are some points which back up your general contention.
DeleteFirst, we have the UK House of Commons led by Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, recently vote to PAY Mauritius to take over the Chagos Islands where the UK and the U.S.A. have military bases. Mauritius is a close ally of China. The natives of the Chagos Islands were strongly opposed to Keir Starmer on this, and it is not in the interests of the U.K., but of the globalist Davos-style world vision.
Second, there is Mark Carney’s trade deal with China. He is actively siding with the foremost communist nation in the world against the U.S.A.
Third, the present Minnesota situation where the left-wing adamantly opposes ICE agents deporting violent criminals. Moreover, Minnesota government officials turned a blind eye (assuming they were not in on the corruption themselves, they did not oppose DEI to clamp down on the fraud lest they be accused of racism) to rampant Somali fraud which funneled massive amounts of money from needy citizens in Minnesota to Somalians.
It’s amazing how rank racism is the foundation for many of your worldviews. It forms the background of your thoughts, like the air you breathe. What is happening in Minnesota is an assault on the people by this administration. Minnesotans - better people than the so-called virtue lovers always rationalizing evil - are standing up for their neighbors. You sick folks look at all this and invent conspiracies to explain it away. It’s pathetic. Everyone is paid or ‘far left.’ No one could possibly be against masked goons rounding people up, teargassing and murdering their neighbors because they happen to be migrants. Well, too bad for you, the opposition is real, genuine, and moral. This admin is attacking everyone and their ‘enforcing law’ pretext is just that - they are terrorizing democratic states, and they are not going after only criminals.
DeleteAs this post, unfortunately, confirms a lot of you easily go along because the desire for tyranny is strong in all of you. Whether it is classed up with philosophical argumentation or, like the above ( and more common), just rank racism and nonsensical conspiratorial thinking.
Anonymous (whom I suspect to be Miguel Cervantes, but you are welcome to correct me), I am glad that you agree with John F. Ghostley, as do I, that Europe is under threat from mass non-Western migration. With regard to the invasion of millions of people from Catholic (mainly Latin American) countries, it is quite a complicated issue. First, anyone who comes or stays here illegally does not have an automatic right not to be deported no matter how useful their staying might be. I agree with Ed that the U.S. government could profitably allow some of the illegal aliens who have been in the country a long time to mutual benefit to stay. Second, the character of the person matters, not just the country. The people from Tren de Aragua etc. are in a different situation from the Venezuelans who rejoiced at the removal of Maduro. Third, a considerable proportion of upright immigrants from Catholic countries such as Brazil are Protestants. There are Protestants who don't want Catholics coming to the U.S.A. and there are Catholics who don't want Protestants coming to the U.S.A. I hope that your phrase "un-Christian lobbies that hate these people" covers both groups.
DeleteGhostley:
DeleteFirst, please, spare me the self-righteous self-martyrology. It's genuinely pathetic to see someone take such a blatantly self-pitying stance, pre-emptively framing all opposition to them as Odium Fidei.
Second, Peter Schweitzer is hardly considered a reliable source on politics. He's a senior editor at Breitbart, and a far-right conservative. His books have frequently been criticized for factual inaccuracy, citing sources that could not be found by investigators, and for plagiarism. This of course doesn't automatically disprove his claims, but it gives me every right to be highly skeptical of anything he produces. I wouldn't base my worldview on his work, if I were you.
Third - really? You're waiting for "reliable" evidence that Trump has committed crimes? Please, do explain how what we already know is somehow unreliable. We have already seen him blow up civilians on highly dubious grounds that he refuses to provide evidence for and remove the leader of a sovereign country by force, then attempting to steal their oil. This is public knowledge, he is not even attempting to hide it. What will it take for you to trust this information? Or do you consider all sources other than those inclined to agree with you as unreliable?
Fourth - really, we're going after "Modernist heretics" again? I'm not interested in chasing down that rabbit hole anymore, but let me ask you one question. Why do you think modernism, nominalism, liberalism, etc, even happened at all? Do you really think there was just some movement of dementedly evil intellectuals who KNEW that Thomism was true but decided out of selfish pride to pretend that it wasn't? These things came about because of genuine flaws in the old Scholastic order - Nominalism in fact came out of Late Scholasticism, remember? Most Traditionalist Catholics fail to honestly engage with the social and intellectual currents that led to the rise of liberalism in the first place. Until and unless you do that, any criticism you make will simply be shouting into the void. Nobody other than your fellow travelers cares that you are upset about the old order being replaced. To persuade anyone outside of your silo, you need to deal with the substantive reasons WHY it was replaced, and to do so honestly.
Anon 1: I would still quibble about Europe. I acknowledge that the question is more complicated here than in America, but the claims of Islamic Usurpation are based on wildly exaggerating the figures and making dubious assertions. Muslims currently make up only 8% of Europe's population, and even if we assume continuing high migration and high birthrates, by 2050 it will only be 14%. Even if you view Muslims as uniformly dangerous, that doesn't seem like a huge threat. Furthermore, that ignores several key factors. For one, European Muslims generally don't remain highly religious, at least not across generations. First-gen immigrants often retain their faith due to being raised in highly religious societies and needing it as a cultural touchstone in an unfamiliar land, but this falls off a cliff with subsequent generations, proving they're just as susceptible to secularism as anyone else. It varies, of course, but in highly secular France only 1/3rd of Muslims say they are actually religious believers. This greatly reduces the potency of any argument from the incompatibility of Islam with modernity. Of course, fundamentalist and Jihadist Muslims are still a threat, but they are radicals who can be managed and marginalized just like any other kind of religious extremist.
DeleteAnon 2: The Chagos Islands deal has been in progress since 2022, and Mauritius has been mounting legal challenges about the islands since 2010. Whether the deal is a good idea or not, it is happening because of ordinary politics that crosses different governments and parties, not because the Elites are all conspiring to sell the world to China. If they were, why did the British government not do the deal earlier?
DeleteMark Carney is siding with China? Hmm, now why on Earth might that be? Could it be that the United States has been publicly "joking" about annexing his country for the last year? Could it be that they've been hit with punitive tariffs over dubious claims by that selfsame country, and thus can no longer trust it? No, don't be silly. Obviously it must be that the Globalist Communist Davos Cabal is once again advancing their dastardly plan to destroy America, Freedom, and Mom's Apple Pie. We could NEVER be the bad guys!
Oh yeah, and that family of 8 who got tear gassed and hit with stun grenades in Minneapolis were TOTALLY terrorists. Sure, ICE agents might have had their training cut to just 47 days, but there's simply NO reason to think that they'd ever engage in brutality! Trust the Leader!
https://news.sky.com/video/fathers-six-children-in-hospital-after-ice-agents-throw-tear-gas-at-their-car-amidst-minneapolis-protests-13494538
3rd Anon:
DeleteAre you the voice of dissent that often shows up alongside me? Thank you, if so. Seeing that I'm not alone is heartening, even if the commentariat often ignore what we have to say. Well, I guess we'll have to see what history has to say in the end, won't we? It's truly disgusting what some people are willing to tolerate or even support. Proof that racism was never actually gotten rid of, just swept under the rug. America made a mistake in letting the South get off lightly after the Civil War. Reconstruction should have been carried out to the end, and when this regime is finally overthrown, the Second Reconstruction must be done with far more conviction.
Oh, one more detail I forgot in response to Anon 1: The Muslim Takeover narrative also relies on the assumption that Islamic migrants will retain their higher-than-native birthrates over the long term, which is highly unlikely. As I mentioned above, they are no more immune to secularism than Christians are, and tend to adopt the cultural values of their host societies. They're also subject to the same socioeconomic conditions that lead native Europeans to have low birthrates. Maybe the first generation will maintain high birthrates for a while, but the idea that their much-less-religious children who've grown up surrounded by secularism will do the exact same as their parents is very dubious indeed.
DeleteThree notes from the Commonwealth. First, congratulations to Australia, which had one of the better “Australia Days” with rising patriotism and the globalist anti-Australia-Day movement in clear decline. Second, Alberta is rapidly accumulating enough signatures for there to be a referendum on independence from Canada. Mark Carney’s globalist premiership has been horrific. Third, Keir Starmer’s days as U.K. Prime Minister are coming to an end. His blocking of Andy Burnham from contesting the upcoming by-election has horrified many Labour supporters. Reform UK continues to rise, with former Home Secretary Suella Braverman becoming the latest MP to switch to Reform.
DeleteEXE: You are an excellent, well-informed and prolific writer. I used to be like that here myself, with certain posters, until I finally realized it really didn't lead anywhere. But you go, man. (I assume you are male. The vast majority of posters here are. And most philosophers are male.)
ReplyDeleteUpdate on the Chagos Islands: Keir Starmer has had to back down on his betrayal of both British and Chagosians.
ReplyDeleteThe AI icon Amelia (initially intended by Labour's government in their Pathways animation to quash anyone who questioned immigration policies) has been claimed by the right and gone mega-viral. This has had Keir Starmer and Labour in an absolute panic on several fronts. One poster said
“In the two weeks since Amelia’s birth, Starmer has cancelled plans for a digital ID, abandoned attempts at organizing an international X ban, and has now been forced to pull out of the Chagos Islands deal. She’s cursed him.” Check out the youtube videos they are hilarious.
WE ARE AMELIA
Hey, how is Brexit working out for you there, Mr. Saxon? Migration's way down, the economy is booming, right? That's what you promised, yeah? Innit? Man, being Donald Trump's pet poodle is so much more fun than having to listen to those stinky, smelly bureaucrats in Brussels! Ew!
DeleteHello, EXE.
DeleteAs you well know, a sequence of British Prime Ministers undermined the Brexit agreement and continued migration. The Tories, as expected, were very bad but Starmer has been even worse. Expect Reform UK to get more seats in the next UK Parliamentary Election than Labour and Conservatives combined. First, though there are the elections for the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments this May. Labour are going to get trounced. In Wales, it is going to be Plaid Cwmru first and Reform UK second. In Scotland, it is going to be the Scottish Nationalist Party first and Reform UK second. Patriotic parties will win. As Marine Le Pen recently said, "The Divide is no longer between the left and the right but between patriots and globalists." Next elections, the patriots (often derided as jingoists, as was Churchill) will win.
Mr Saxon.
Hello again, EXE.
DeleteBy the way, in another thread you implied that secularism had abolished slavery. It was not secularism but the British Navy because of laws passed due to Anglicans like William Wilberforce, influenced by John Wesley and others. Anglo-Saxon Britain didn't just end its own slave trade (slavery has existed from ancient times; it did not begin with European colonial powers), it tried to end that of other countries also. Over ten thousand of the British Navy died enforcing abolition but they freed over one hundred thousand slaves. As Amelia points out, the Church of England is now utterly useless but this has nothing to do with race. Au contraire, the Global Anglican Communion (which is largely African and Asian) is a great force for good. John Wesley and William Wilberforce would be at home in the Global Anglican Communion. The Church of England has been destroyed by DEI.