Saturday, November 06, 2004
A small piece of prudential judgment
First, I think it's been too often used as an alibi, rather than a philosophical application. Even by bishops, it seems.
An issue which might be a matter of prudential judgment, the war in Iraq is often cited, does not mean it is a matter of passing on judgment. I thought Iraq War I was immoral. There was no doubt in my mind that Iraq War II was as well. "Imprudent" as well. I've seen the counterarguments that as opposed to abortion, fewer lives are being taken in the Middle East, therefore the bloodier transgression requires proportionately more attention. I don't think one can measure out proportionality, even for where one gives one's charity dollar or time or letter writing or blogging.
A pacifist approach to the commandment "You shall not kill" would be quite literal, by definition. A pacifist might say the Just War approach is "cafeteria Christianity." I would trend to the former, and try my best to withhold judgment publicly on the latter. Even if I weren't a pacifist, Iraq War II raises important issues about the proper justification for war, the proper conduct of a war, and the ongoing ability to resolve conflict in the wider Middle East.
Prudential judgment implies that when a person is confronted with the facts and details of an issue, and that when the time is right, a judgment, rather than a non-judgment is made. Saying that we can debate the Bush administration's motivation for starting the war is true. But at some point an amount of evidence will collect at a decision-making time. And a decision must be made.
On some issues, the moral transgression is clearly wrong. On some, the matter can be torturously unsettled (abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother strikes me as a no-win scenario for the parents). But on many, we're called to decide when the time comes (Election Day, the doctor's final report, etc.) and I doubt we'll be getting personal input from our favorite gurus at those times.
