Category: Blog

• 

  Freedom of the Will

  Posted at 11:30 am by ionainstituteni

  Aug 13th

  Freedom is one of our most prized assets; we rightly think that any situation in which we are not free is a situation that is intolerable for human life. Indeed, any state or society that does not recognise the freedom of its members as a basic principle is one that ought to be condemned and perhaps even face sanction. However, we do not prize freedom so highly that it can cut through anything like a double-edged sword; we rightly curtail the freedom of others in certain circumstances. Here I would like to consider the nature of human freedom and why in fact we can legitimately curtail it without treating the person as something less than human.

  To begin with, we rightly prize freedom because it is a feature of our rational nature as human. Human beings are rational animals, in being rational they not only are able to come to terms and know their environment (taken to the extreme of knowing the very principles by means of which the universe can be understood), but also to act in accord with that knowledge. The ability to act in accord with what we know is the foundation of our freedom. We act in light of our knowledge because given what we know we can see some end or goal as choiceworthy and implement a course of action to pursue that end. Non-rational animals may pursue an end because of a natural disposition by which that end exercises a magnetic attraction on them, whereas humans reason about the end (perhaps many ends) determining it (one of them) to be worthy of choice. Our choice then is a feature of rationality, and to take that choice away from us is to treat us as something less than human.

  If that were all there were to freedom of the will, things would be quite simple; for it would simply entail that our choices in principle must be free in order to be human, so unless we have freedom of choice we cannot be free. But things are a little more complicated than that. I noted above that when we exercise the freedom of the will we do so because we see some end as worthy of choice, this in contradistinction from other ends that are not so worthy, but still could be chosen. Thus, the exercise of freedom in making choices is not simply ordained to pursue anything whatsoever, but to pursue those ends that we deem worthy. Our freedom then is exercised in the pursuit of some good that we envisage, one that will perfect us or others (and in turn us in the process). Hence freedom of the will would be incomplete unless it is understood as ordained to the pursuit of choiceworthy ends.

  It is the choiceworthy ends to which our free will is ordained that provide constraint on our freedom. Often it is the case that states set down laws by means of which a person’s freedom is threatened if they do not pursue what are generally taken to be choiceworthy ends; murder is the classic example, since there is no justification for the pursuit of murder as an end worthy of choice, and so the state mandates that any exercise of freedom in the pursuit thereof is an act unworthy of choice and hence freedom.

  Freedom of the will then is not a freedom to chase after anything whatsoever, but a freedom to pursue that which is worthwhile, in other words, freedom of the will is a freedom to become excellent, to perfect and better ourselves, or, as Aristotle would say, to pursue virtue. It is not a freedom to pursue vice, since not only would that be an abuse of freedom, it would also limit freedom enslaving the practitioner to the particular vice in question thereby making him or her less free. Hence, freedom of the will is only consistent with those choices that promote human flourishing, and not those which undermine freedom by opting for those ends which do not allow the human person to flourish.

  Freedom of the will then must exist in tandem with order or law so that such freedom can be pursued and directed towards that which makes its bearer excellent. Without such law and order as the boundary within which freedom can be practised, there is no freedom but enslavement to vice.

  Dr Gaven Kerr

  Posted in Blog | Tagged Freedom, Virtue
• 

  The Sexual Culture

  Posted at 6:00 am by ionainstituteni

  Aug 8th

  The Sexually Transmitted Infection surveillance in Northern Ireland 2017 published by the Public Health Agency makes for some interesting reading. In general it shows that new diagnoses of chlamydia, gonorrhoea, genital herpes simplex (first episode), genital warts (first episode) have increased from previous years. Within the female population it was women in the age group of 16-24 who were consistently the worst affected, whereas in males it tended to be those in the 20-34 age bracket.[1]

  This data coincides with the FPA’s data on sexual practices of young people published a few years earlier in 2014, which shows that of a representative sample of 14 – 25 year olds over 50% have had sexual intercourse. 36.7% of that number had sex before the age of 17; 27.4% before the age of 16; 42.6% of young men and 33.6% of young women said they were drunk when they first had sex; sexually active respondents had had on average six sexual partners with young women having an average of five partners, and young men eight; not only that, the majority of these young people claimed it would be easy to access contraception.[2]

  I say that all this makes for interesting reading not because it is fascinating and it can expand our horizons in the way that good literature, science, philosophy etc can do. It is interesting in the sense that it should arouse our interest to the fact that young people, young women especially, are caught up in a sexual culture which is damaging them. Set aside issues as to one’s self valuation in having many sexual partners, or the moral integrity of making use of another person (several persons) for one’s sexual gratification; focus more on the fact that the sexual culture within which young people are entrenched is one that is damaging their physical health. Consistently in the female population it is the 16 – 24 year olds who are the worst affected. This is despite the fact that the majority of the young people considered in the FPA’s factsheet said they would find it easy to access contraception.

  There is no safe sex in these circumstances; there is only more or less dangerous sex. Often greater access to contraception is suggested as a means of controlling the damaging side effects of such sexual behaviour. But the majority of young people engaging in sex said it would be easy to access contraception, and a sizeable proportion of young respondents said they were drunk when they first had sex. This sexual culture is not one of responsibility, but of irresponsibility whereby sex is seen to be nothing more than an enjoyable past time (something to do when drunk) as opposed to an extremely potent relation that unites two people at their deepest and most personal levels. Bombarding this situation with more contraception is not going to turn an irresponsible outlook into a responsible one; since contraception promotes the outlook that one can engage in sexual intercourse without having to take responsibility for the normal circumstances surrounding that activity.

  These young people are engaging in sex at a young and quite formative age. Given the STI stats above, it is during those years whereby they are forming themselves as young people ready to embrace the world that they are being quite physically damaged by sex, especially young women, to say nothing of their psychological or moral outlook. All of this is a symptom of a wider problem whereby sex is not seen as an activity uniting two people; rather it is seen as something that two individuals do for themselves for their own reasons – each to their own. Viewing sex as something that only accidentally unites two people, like enjoying an amusement ride with one’s friend only on a grander scale, divorces sex from any deeper relationship. But sexual intercourse unites us at our deepest and most personal levels, in which case if there is not already a deep personal unity between the persons in the form of a relationship, sex has very little significance.

  The deeper and on-going tragedy of such a rampant sexual culture goes beyond the physical damage that it is causing in our young people, it goes to the heart of society insofar as we are failing to encourage young people to form deep and lasting relationships which will in turn provide the context of a deep and lasting sex life. To take responsibility for one’s sex life is not to take some artificial measure for avoiding the typical consequences of sex and hopefully the atypical consequences in the form of STIs; rather it is to take responsibility for one’s personal relations with others, and in particular with that other to whom one feels the deepest affection and closest bond, anything else just devalues sex and makes it less enjoyable than it actually is.

  To use another for one’s own sexual gratification is quite a problematic activity since it fails to recognise the human dignity of the other than one is using. When such use is reciprocal, that is a tragedy, since neither recognises the dignity of the other that they are using. If we as a society feel that we can use each other in the deepest and most profound way simply for our own good, rather than striving to work for the other’s good and setting our sights on that, then we are failing as a society; for we are not seeing others as the rational beings that they are and with whom we form relations (and hopefully relationships), but as mere objects subject to our own desires. Bringing about a responsible sexual culture is not simply about preventing pregnancy or STIs, it’s about seeing sex as a relation in which each works for the good of the other and thereby binds the two together in working for each other’s good. When we strive for the good of the other, we are taking responsibility for the others in our lives, and that responsibility applies to all our relations, not only sexual.

  [1] Public Health Agency, Sexually Transmitted Infection surveillance in Northern Ireland 2017 (http://www.publichealth.hscni.net/sites/default/files/STI%20surveillance%20report%202017%20_0.pdf).

  [2] FPA factsheet, Sexual Behaviour and Young People (https://www.fpa.org.uk/sites/default/files/northern-ireland-sexual-behaviour-and-young-people.pdf).

  Posted in Blog | Tagged Culture, Sex
• 

  Noble Disagreement in Moral Matters

  Posted at 12:24 pm by ionainstituteni

  Aug 1st

  In a previous post I made the case that moral discourse can be civilised by attending to the reasoning and argumentation made on behalf of the conclusions adopted, so that the positions can be thought through and if agreement is not attained, at least one can see how one’s opponent gets from A to B to C (https://ionainstituteni.org/2018/07/04/rehabilitating-public-moral-discussion/). What this view presupposes is that there can be noble disagreement in moral matters such that whilst two interlocuters disagree, their disagreement is not based on any unworthy sentiment of the one to the other, e.g. hatred, malice, fear etc; rather their disagreement is a reasonable one such that either sees the weight of his or her respective reasons as outweighing the other’s.

  It is often presupposed that this sort of noble disagreement is impossible in moral matters; this is because of a general widespread commitment to moral relativism. Failing any objective moral principles by which moral judgements can be made, the relativist often argues that such judgements are based on subjective tendencies of the one making them. Hence, when moral disagreement occurs it is not a result of some reasoned framework which grounds the judgement; rather it is a judgement of the other person motivated by some underlying sentiment. Hence, moral relativism often frames moral judgements as a kind of disapproval of the person acting in a way that we dislike, to which the obvious response is that if you don’t like X, don’t do it, but don’t tell others not to. Clearly on such a view there can be no noble disagreement in moral matters, because all moral disagreement rests on some ignoble motivation for objecting to the behaviour of another.

  In order to circumvent this scenario and allow for noble disagreement and in turn civilised moral discourse we must distinguish between making a moral judgement and judging a person’s moral behaviour; the two are not identical.

  When we make a moral judgement we do so having outlined and defended a moral framework which considers species of acts and determines whether they are good or bad accordingly; hence one striving to be good seeks to act in accord with that framework. All three of the main moral traditions (virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism) outline a framework by means of which moral actions can be categorised.

  Making moral judgements as to what is right and wrong given a moral framework is quite distinct from judging a person’s moral character. A person may be committed to some moral framework, for example the utilitarianism of Singer defended in Practical Ethics whereby we consider equally the interests of all who have a stake in some action. That person may be trying her best to form her actions in accord with that outlook since she is convinced of the truth of Singer’s view. However, given her personal history, her weaknesses, aspects of Practical Ethics she finds challenging, etc she may fail to live up to the standards of Singer’s outlook. Nevertheless, given her starting point, that person may have come quite far in her own endeavour to live by a particular moral vision. She should be praised accordingly for that, even though in a number of respects she fails to live by the standards of the outlook she has adopted.

  A person, for whatever reasons, may fall short of the standards set by some moral framework; that doesn’t make the standards any less true, and the inability to live by those standards, as in the above example, is not an immediate condemnation of the person. Only the individual person knows how far (or not) he or she has come in trying to live a good life by some standard; but the standard itself can be considered independently of the people trying to live by it (or not) and assessed in itself.

  One can have a noble disagreement in moral matters precisely because one can consider the truth or falsity of a moral outlook independently of those who do or don’t live by that framework. Hence, when one argues that A, B, C are right or wrong, one is not making a judgement on a person who does or does not do A, B, C; rather, one is making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of A, B, and C. And this can be done by appealing to independent reasons and not on the basis of some sentiment about the practitioners of A, B, and C. Noble disagreement in moral matters then requires that we focus more on the truth or falsity of the moral framework involved, e.g. the truth or falsity of Singer’s Practical Ethics or Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, and less on the person who strives, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to live by that framework. That way we can avoid imputing to those with whom we disagree ignoble sentiments as founding the disagreement and thereby focus more on the reasonableness of the moral outlooks involved.

  Dr Gaven Kerr

  Posted in Blog | Tagged Disagreement, Morality
• 

  The Paradoxes of Tolerance

  Posted at 9:50 am by ionainstituteni

  Jul 26th

  Tolerance is an almost sacred concept in contemporary public discussion. It is taken to be a concept that when put into practice almost always guarantees the moral uprightness of the practitioner. There is nothing worse in the estimation of others than to be intolerant. Tolerance is taken to be such a foundational norm of behaviour that it transcends the general moral relativism which abounds these days and can seem to cut through any moral system. Nevertheless, there are certain paradoxes of tolerance that are often the focus of discussion in the literature in this area. I shall focus on three pertaining to important aspects of the nature of tolerance.

  The Nature of Tolerance

  The general notion of tolerance is that it involves at least the recognition or acceptance that there are people, beliefs, practices etc with which one does not agree, which one finds objectionable in some way, but which one does not take steps to suppress or undermine. So there is something that one finds disagreeable or objectionable, yet one tolerates it for some reason.

  The first essential feature of tolerance then is the objection component – in order to be tolerant, we must find something objectionable. If one does not find something objectionable, one does not tolerate it, one is simply indifferent to it.

  The second essential feature is that in spite of what we find objectionable, we accept it in some way. This does not mean that we endorse what is objectionable or that it is no longer objectionable, but that the reasons for accepting what we find objectionable outweigh the reasons for finding it objectionable. And so we are led with good reason to tolerate what is objectionable.

  The third feature then is that there has to be a limit to toleration. This is because sometimes the reasons for finding something objectionable far outweigh any reasons that could be provided for accepting it. Murder is a classic example in this regard; the reasons for objecting to murder are always weightier than any reason for accepting it. Hence we do not tolerate murder.

  On the basis of these three features of tolerance, there are three paradoxes.

  The Paradox of Objection

  Finding something objectionable is an essential feature of tolerance; if we don’t find something objectionable, we are not said to tolerate it, we are simply indifferent to it. It follows then that the more objectionable we find something and yet are able to accept it, the more tolerant we are and hence have a stronger moral character. But there is a paradox looming here.

  Suppose we have a racist who is genuinely convinced of her racism. This person finds people of other races objectionable; yet she realises that the reasons for being tolerant are stronger than those for being racist. Hence, she decides that in spite of finding people of other races objectionable, she will accept them nonetheless. The paradox here is that if tolerance is a fundamental virtue to possess, then this tolerant racist is really being quite virtuous and has a good moral character. Thus, somebody with quite a depraved and indefensible moral outlook can be said to be morally virtuous – and this is an obvious paradox.

  The Paradox of Acceptance

  To be tolerant one not only has to find something objectionable, one also has to accept what one finds objectionable. So the reasons for acceptance in this regard are stronger than the reasons for rejection. There are plenty of mundane examples of this kind. Many parents of small children will often find the general chaos and disorder of the home objectionable – they would rather it not be like that. But the reasons for objecting here are very slight compared to the reasons for accepting such disorder, e.g. giving children space to thrive, growing in love through play, allowing children to express themselves, watching them grow etc.

  On the other hand, there are cases where the reasons for objecting to something are very strong, almost as strong as the reasons for accepting it, and so there appears to be a kind of stalemate. In such cases, if we tolerate that for which we have very strong reason for rejecting, we end of tolerating something that we have very good reasons for finding objectionable. And this is evidently paradoxical since we ought not to tolerate that which we have good reasons to reject.

  The Paradox of Limits

  There has to be a limit to toleration since we cannot tolerate everything. So if our reasons for rejecting something outweigh our reasons for accepting it, we are thus intolerant of it. But there is a certain paradox here in the very idea of a limit to toleration. If tolerance is taken to be something good and virtuous, then its complementary opposite, intolerance, is taken to be something vicious and not good. But there are quite straightforward cases in which the right thing to do is to be intolerant of something, e.g. we do not tolerate murder, racism, sectarianism etc. The paradox here is that whilst tolerance is conceived as a virtue we can also be said to be virtuous when we practice its opposite and are intolerant.

  Conclusion

  Given these paradoxes, what are we to do? Are we to reject tolerance as a virtue to cultivate? Certainly not!

  In the history of thought, paradoxes have often played an important role in clarifying an issue. Indeed there is a well established proof in logic known as reductio ad absurdum such that if we assume some premise and establish a contradiction on the assumption of that premise, then we can reasonably infer that the assumed premise is not the case or must be clarified in some way. The consideration of paradoxes thus allows us either to deny a premise or clarify its meaning.

  In the case of tolerance, we do not deny the need to cultivate tolerance as a virtue, so given the paradoxes we must clarify tolerance in some way. What the paradoxes show is that tolerance is not something that is morally normative. It is not enough to be tolerant; one has to be tolerant in the right circumstances with the right object. The only way to do this if we weigh the reasons for objecting to something and the reasons for accepting it. But the only way to do that is if we have certain moral norms more basic than tolerance by which to evaluate what is objectionable and acceptable, i.e. what is right and wrong. Hence, tolerance does not tell us what is right or wrong, it only goes to implement what we already take to be right and wrong. Tolerance is therefore not a sure guide in moral matters, but rather latches onto a deeper moral framework which is our guide; it is the strength of justification of that framework and its informing our actions that will establish whether or not we are acting virtuously, not how tolerant we are.

  Dr Gaven Kerr

  Posted in Blog | Tagged Morality, Tolerance
• 

  A Mother’s Reflection on the Gift of Children

  Posted at 11:54 am by ionainstituteni

  Jul 23rd

  For the past twenty years my life has been surrounded by children. As a mother of eight God continues to teach me much through them. Children make us better people. They keep us grounded and prevent us from becoming self-absorbed. From the first moment of that dreaded early pregnancy sickness we learn to sacrifice our own comfort for another. They challenge us and have an immense capacity for unconditional love and forgiveness.

  Children have an ability to evoke the strongest emotions in us – intense love, protectiveness, annoyance, and impatience. How much we can learn from children! They make us keenly aware of both our strengths and our weaknesses. Being in their company is good for us. We are challenged to forget ourselves and put their needs first

  One of my favourite images of Jesus is a sketch of him laughing heartily surrounded by children. The picture shows him with a little smiling boy on his knee while another hugs his neck from behind.  I love contemplating this image as it is exactly as I understand Jesus to be around children: playful, loving and right in the middle of things.

  As children how easily our hearts and minds open up to the reality of God’s love for us and to our true identity as His beloved sons and daughters. Jesus elevated children, famously chiding his apostles from preventing them coming to him after a very long day of public ministry.

  “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Mathew 19:14).

  I was just nineteen years old when a family friend who was also a Christian brother handed me an audio cassette tape called ‘Contraception, why not’ by a professor Janet E Smith. It was certainly an odd title but as she was a sociologist and this was my area of study at university I was immediately interested. It was an intriguing talk, factual, compelling and even entertaining. I was completely convinced after hearing her sixty minute presentation that Church teaching on human life was both progressive and prophetic. As the years passed and I encountered the many myths, inaccuracies, and open hostility to this area of Church teaching I am so grateful to that family friend for simply handing me that little tape which provided such clarity on this important area at such a young age.

  Being pro-life is not about having baby after baby. It is about both generosity and responsibility. It is about taking the time to get to know our God given biology as men and women and working with nature rather than against it. It is about a healthy respect for the gift of procreation and exercising discernment and prudence within our own particular circumstances. It is also about not judging other couples whether they have one child or ten!

  Yet in today’s ailing culture a horrible mindset has taken hold. A mindset which deems large families as irresponsible. Welcoming children into this world is no longer viewed as a blessing and a privilege but a choice that we must control at all costs. If that child is diagnosed in the womb with a disability that choice is extended in many countries up to the point of birth. With the advent of new ‘designer baby’ techniques and three person embryos the ability to exercise control over new human life has reached disturbing new levels. At a time when materialism and medical advances are at an all-time high, the most basic of children’s rights are at an all-time low. As well as taking away the very right to life from children in the womb some countries have decided that born children don’t even have the right to know the identity of their natural mother or father.

  This obsession with controlling new life has permeated deep into our culture and our communities. When I was in hospital having my last baby word quickly spread that I was having number eight. I was a constant source of bewilderment and pity. I mean I seemed normal enough but what on earth was wrong with me? Eight children in this day and age!

  What is it about children that has become so threatening to our adult world? How have they become the target of countless laws and policies which are determined to control and even extinguish their existence when they are at their most vulnerable? This beautiful gift of new human life has been rejected, demeaned, and exploited under the guise of choice and compassion.

  The so-called progressives of our age in their pursuit of radical adult centred ideologies have ironically stripped children of the most basic rights of all. The right to be born once conceived and the right where possible to a mother and father’s love are now dependent on adult choice and protected in law in many supposedly developed countries.

  In the developing world it is children that continue to be the greatest casualties of war, famine, and disease. As pope Francis pointed out “In a world where there is so much wealth, so many resources to feed everyone, it is unfathomable that there are so many hungry children.” (Pope Francis 2013)

  And yet the paschal mystery at the heart of Christianity holds up a radical and countercultural message. One that shows us that true happiness comes from giving of ourselves and putting our own needs second place. We were made in the image and likeness of God who in Jesus showed us all the true meaning of sacrificial love.

  This is the narrow path that Jesus invites us to climb as his followers. To serve rather than be served. This is how we discover our true identity as children of God and find true peace.

  Despite the many challenges and even chaos children can bring us, our love for them gives us plenty of opportunity to climb further up that narrow path. Whether we are a sleep deprived new parent or working overtime to pay the mortgage. Whether it is struggling to monitor a fourteen year old’s screen time or debate a curfew with a sixteen year old. We need endless amounts of patience and perseverance. Most of all though we need to be praying parents actively seeking God’s intervention in our children’s lives. And ultimately we need to be trusting parents who know that despite the wrong choices our children may make, and despite our own shortcomings, our efforts and prayers are never wasted. We entrust their lives to our heavenly Father who knows and loves each child, uniquely, and passionately.

  In this 50 year anniversary of the publication of Humane Vitae, we need honestly to reflect upon and share with renewed vigour and clarity the beauty and wisdom of Church teaching on openness to new life and the immense gift that children are to our broken humanity.

  Tracy Harkin

  Posted in Blog | Tagged Children, Family, Humanae Vitae, Motherhood

• Sign up for our eNewsletter!

  Please follow this link to sign up to receive our regular eNewsletter.

• Be Social

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Email

• Follow Blog via Email

  Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  Email Address:

  Follow

• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • Iona Conference, a resounding success!
  • Press Release on 30th March Conference, “The Future of Conscience in an Age of Intolerance”
  • Conference 30th March 2019: ‘The Future of Conscience in an Age of Intolerance’
  • BBC Top Table show predictably sets narrow frame for discussion on abortion
  • Calls for complete decriminalisation of Northern Ireland’s abortion law are reckless and extreme.