The Christian Vanguard

Suppose one took the traditional position that an unjust law is no law at all. This has the curious consequence of having to say that there are no such thing as bad laws. When countries have codified slavery, we can't say that they have a bad law on the books, because that law isn't real to begin with. But this seems counter intuitive. We do want to say that countries have bad laws. Other than being a legal positivist, one way out of this is to draw the parallels from metaphysics more generally. So when we say that evil exists, we could say that we don't mean it literally since evil is a deprivation and deprivations don't have their own positive ontology. Rather, evil is parasitic upon being. Likewise, we can say that bad laws do exist, but that they are parasitic upon something else. What this could be, I'm not certain, perhaps parasitic upon the governing authorities, but that would be a place to start this investigation. 

Someone on Facebook asked me why I think contraception is immoral. This is what I wrote. When asked, “Why think contraception is wrong” we should lay out what our metaethical theory is. What is it that makes a thing wrong in the first place? St. Paul employs the Natural Law approach to ethics in Romans 1:26-27 when he writes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that when men and women exchange their natural desires for unnatural ones, they do something vile, and they commit a shameless error. So, St. Paul is using basic Natural Law to explain the condemnation of homosexuality. But St. Paul doesn’t explicate the underlying metaphysics, so, allow me to do so. Why is it that when something is unnatural, it is wrong? It has to do with two metaphysical commitments within the Natural Law, first is essences, and the second is teleology. An essence is what makes a thing the kind of thing it is. It is in the essence, or definition, of a triangle to have three sides. It is in the essence o...

Legal positivism is the view that whatever is posited as law is truly law. To help understand this, consider first the Nuremberg Trials, in which Nazi war criminals were prosecuted. The common defense for the Nazis was that they were obeying the law, and laws are supposed to be obeyed. So they obeyed them, and you can't blame them for doing what they were supposed to do. As Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail, what they did was legal. That doesn't seem to be contested. So, if we wish to prosecute Nazis, on what grounds should we do it? Do we want to say that laws do not need to be obeyed? That seems like too much to say. I like it when everyone obeys the law and drives on the right side of the road. It keeps me, and everyone else, safe. So laws do need to be obeyed. Does Nazi law count as real law then? According to legal positivism, yes it does. Legal positivists will disagree on what is the mechanism for positing a law, whether it is the c...

No. As St. Thomas Aquinas argued ,  In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common. ...whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law , to the purpose of succoring the poor. ...if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery. I've written about this before, in my post about why I am not a libertarian, but I've been meaning to go back and edit that post. But anyways, imagine that I have labored to gain property rights over all the water in the world. Say that a man, and certainly all men but one will do, ne...

When it comes to picking winners, I never win. In the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain-Palin. Obama won. In 2012, I voted Romney-Ryan. Obama won again, though by a smaller margin than his first election, which has never happened in the history of American Presidential elections, which indicates to me that he is nothing but hype. Even in the primaries, I wanted Rick Santorum over Romney, and before she dropped out, Michelle Bachman over Santorum. I did not vote for Scott Brown, I was shocked then terrified when Elizabeth Warren was reelected, I was almost in tears when Star Parker wasn’t elected, I was furious when Alan Lowenthal won the congressional seat, I rooted for the Lakers these last three seasons, and to top it all off, I’m a Raiders fan. I just can not pick them.  

It started with marriage. I love debates, and one of the debates that brings light with its heat is the same-sex marriage debate. I'm a Christian, so my position is already determined for me theologically, yet when discussing with non-believers, starting with this presupposition is not adequate. So I thought to myself, how can I go about making such an argument against same-sex marriage? I read around, looked at some articles, some in books, some in magazines, and some online. I took what I thought were good points and meshed them into a general worldview. I also considered criticisms and I constructed my view with those in mind to sidestep some pitfalls. So what you see was that product of all that. Basically, what I came up with was this (as far as I know, my syllogism is original):