The Christian Vanguard

I wrote the following for my medical ethics class. Nothing in here is original. There were footnotes, but they don't transfer over in a copy-paste.  In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally impermissible. I will begin with narrowing down questions that need to be answered in the debate. From there, I will examine what it is that I am, then explore why I have moral status, and argue that I am numerically identical to the fetus. Throughout all this, I will be contrasting it with the personhood view, which I take to be the strongest opposing view.  Suppose one day you are washing dishes, and your child comes up behind you and asks, “Mommy, can I kill this?” It would be foolish to answer without turning around and seeing what “this” refers to. If it is a worm on a fishing hook, it’s probably permissible to say, “Sure. Go do it outside.” However, if you saw your child was holding a knife to a puppy’s throat, you probably would not respond the same way. This sho...

The following is a paper I wrote for my medical ethics class. The topic is lying. I had about 20 footnotes, but a simple copy-paste action won't carry those over, so, I'm not claiming to be original here or anything.  In this paper I will argue that lying to a patient is wrong because lying simpliciter is always wrong. This will be distinguished from other acts, such as reservation and deceit, in which the patient does not receive the truth but may be permissible. Cases will be considered which it may seem beneficial to lie to the patient and to lie for the patient. I will be drawing from St. Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers that interact with the Thomist tradition.  I begin with the assumption that man is a rational animal. That man is a kind of animal is not controversial, for the whole field of medical science deals with the reality of that animality, and how to treat it. That man is also rational also seems to be uncontroversial as shown by the medical fields...

The question as to whether video games cause violence was a hot topic recently. I don't know whether it does or it doesn't, but I think some conservatives like myself may have reason to suspect it does. Conservatives, like myself, say that pornography is part of the cause for sex trafficking and sexual violence. I won't go into detail for that argument, but I do refer you to the book The Social Costs of Pornography . And what is pornography? They are images for the purpose of stimulating our sexual arousal. While we do not engage in the acts of the images, since those times are past and perhaps in far away locations, they engage our fantasies. So, there is some connection between that and sexual violence. Now, consider violent video games. What do they do? They are also images that engage our fantasies. And they engage them into acts of violence. I killed this person. I ran over that person. I decapitated her. I shot their dog. Etc. They engage the fantasy. And so, likewise...

I have been reflecting on my many regrets lately. The biggest of which is my consumption of carbs. I should have had my sandwich lettuce wrapped instead of on buns. I should have let my girlfriend have my chicken nuggets, instead of consuming them all by myself them like a fatty. So, I go home, and I have remorse. "Why am I like this? Why wasn't I able to control myself?" Plato considers it, and so does Aristotle to some extent. Of course, I was able to control myself. It wasn't like I was sitting down, watching myself on a TV screen, and seeing someone else control my body as if I were being possessed. No one possessed me. If I go to a dinner, and I let myself go, I say I lost control. In a literal sense, I did not lose control, but something did come over me, and that was my appetites (both in Aristotlean sense and in the common sense). My emotions came over me, and I decided to follow that. What we mean by losing control is that we let our reason lose control....

We have all been, or know someone who has been, "emotional." What does this mean? That they have some strong emotions, yes, but that alone cannot be a good answer. When a groom cries when he sees his bride walk down the aisle has some strong emotions, but we wouldn't say he is "being emotional." When a parents loses their child, she may cry but we wouldn't say that she should stop "being emotional." Contrast this with the interchangeable phrase "be rational." Likewise, we do not say that one ought not have emotions and be nothing but rational. This is an even worse mistake. So what do we mean?  Observe what happens when someone is "being emotional." Say Eve breaks up with Adam. Adam doesn't like this, so what Adam does is lash out. He lashes out in anger because it feels right to him. But is lashing out the correct thing to do? Ask Adam, and he will do one of two things: he will say admit that it is not the right thing,...

The death penalty is up for vote here in CA. I've seen some otherwise solid Catholics in favor of abolishing it. I am for maintaining. I recently came across this article from a friend on my Facebook newsfeed, and I suppose I can respond to it here. 

I've always been uncomfortable with Divine Command Theory as a moral theory. Reading David Oderberg's Moral Theory  has really helped me understand why. The way I used to express my concern was that DCT never really told us anything about how we should live. It just kind of says that what is right or wrong for us is whatever God tells us, and so we ought to obey. Why God commands a thing may be a separate issue (maybe it is rooted in his divine nature and so flows necessarily from that, or maybe we're complete voluntarists). And what use is just saying "God says it" when we ask ourselves what the right course of action is, when God may not have addressed the issue?  Oderberg recognizes that ethics are a body of knowledge and like any other kind of science should be available to everyone by some kind of method that is repeatable and produces repeatable results. DCT, could produce real knowledge, but it couldn't be accessible to others if God has not comman...

The most common argument against us in the #NeverTrump movement is that if we do not vote for Trump, then we are voting for Hillary. This is a ridiculous argument. It also follows that if I do not vote for Hillary, then I am voting for Trump. So, which is it? My refusal to vote a vote for which candidate?  And why is it that when this counter-argument is presented to me, it is done in a sarcastic way? "Have fun electing Hillary then!" "You're going to be so proud when Hillary destroys this country." Why do they insist on lacking grace? Do they layer their arguments with haughtiness and snark to compensate for the lack of thought that went into this? Perhaps. But maybe it is because the gracelessness of the person they are supporting has rubbed off on them. I don't know and I'm not a psychologist.  But there are two more important philosophical issues that I want to draw attention to. First, it conflates ones choices with its consequences, which ...

I would like to be a superhero. It would be really cool if I had superpowers. Reading people’s mind like Dr. Xavier would be nice, or maybe flying like Superman, so I could see the world instead of paying hundreds of dollars for a plane ticket. But like Spider-Man, we should know that with great power comes great responsibility, and we can abuse that power. In a way, we already do have these powers, and it is in our mind. I like to clock out of the world and stare off into space, imagine I’m saving orphans from burning buildings, or when I’m not in a good mood, setting fire to people’s property with my laser beam eyes. Most of the time, I’m the good guy. Sometimes, I’m the villain. Is there anything unethical about this?

Pacifists exists, despite my best efforts. Pacifists are those who hold that violent acts are not permissible, and so acts such as war are also not permissible. This view is popular among the secular left and mixed within Christianity, though notably in the Anabaptist movement. It occurs me to though that there might be some ambiguity in the word “violence” that, without clarification, may lead to either absurdity or inconsistency. 

You’ve heard the term “safe-sex” before, most likely with the verb “practice” preceding it. What does that even mean? “Practice safe-sex” as if sex were intrinsically dangerous. Isn’t that what this assumes? So, what is so dangerous about sex? Well, as far as I know, there are three possible outcomes of sex (which are not mutually exclusive), which are children, diseases, and a emotional charge.

Science is a tool. Because it is a tool, it is therefore an amoral thing in and of itself, that is to say, there is nothing inherently wrong or right about it. For example, an axe is a tool, and can be considered a helpful tool to chop down wood so a man can provide warmth for his family. An axe can also be used as a weapon by that same man to chop down his whole family, but to say that the axe is bad or good, right or wrong, would be a category mistake. In the same way, science, especially those in the areas of medicine and life and death issues, is also amoral. However, guidelines and restrictions must be placed on the use of science. Some uses of science are clearly prohibited just as the use of an axe to murder a family is clearly prohibited. In a new and emerging area of science, that of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), popularly known as “Designer Children”, new questions will arise that have not yet been answered in virtue of the fact that it is a new f...

There have been debates emerging about gun control after each tragic shooting that I have seen on the news. Virginia Tech, Aurora, and now Newtown (I was too young to remember the reaction after Columbine). The debate that has emerged after the Newtown shooting seems to be fiercer since many of the victims were little children, and as responsible Christian citizens, we ought to have some biblical background to the debate, so that we may safely navigate through the issue. So, what does the Bible say about gun control?

The Supreme Court of the United States recently declared what is called “Obama-care” constitutionally permissible. It was a milestone for this country, and a surprising one at that. I thought Obama-care wouldn’t pass, but not a few people were just as surprised as I was. There is no point in trying arguing whether it is unconstitutional or not now. I have had some intense debates about Obama-care, but almost none with disciples. The conversations about health care I’ve had are usually with non-believers. I should be having more with my brothers and sisters but I don’t. Is health care important, and if so, how are Christians to approach it? Let us look at some Scriptures first.

I had a dream the other night. Something of a nightmare. I dreamt this girl, a girl I'd like to date one day, was with another guy. They were holding hands and smiling and just being happy together. And I didn’t like it. In fact, in my dream, I was quite jealous. Of course, the dream wasn’t real. It was fictional, but I was still jealous. It’s quite silly isn't it? I should be able to get over jealously. After all, it’s quite childish to get jealous. So how do we make sense of God’s jealously then? Is God being childish?

Ok, so, obviously lying is a sin (9th Commandment), yet if a Nazi asked me if I were hiding Jews, and I was, the better thing to do is lie. But that's a sin, and you can't do that. So is the Bible wrong? Or is the Nazi story wrong? - Elise Hey Elise,

I used to think that Christians ought to take part in the political process was a given. I have previously written about the permissibility versus impermissibility of voting for Mitt Romney, a Mormon. After all, Christians and governments are seeking to influence the same thing: the public. Christians are called to make disciples of all nations, and governments rule all nations. From this, a Christians should at least be conscious of the kind of government he is in. To my surprise however, many Christians in my acquaintance want nothing to do with government, and they attempt to cite Holy Scripture to defend their position. There are numerous problems with this.

I was walking with a friend to buy lunch one day. As we were walking down a tranquil neighborhood with blossoming Jacaranda trees and well kept lawn grass, my friend observes, “Look at all this concrete and how we are killing this beautiful earth.”