[present tense]

November 2002

---

2002.11.01

Hope you had a happy Reformation Day.

12:18 AM PST :: comments: 0

Another halloween come and gone. A mere 11 costumed moppets came begging to our door. A large bowl of individually wrapped yummy goodness remains full inside our living room. I think we are well on our way to the next Inscrutable Holiday Tradition.

-wink

---

2002.10.31

Up Next: the Anti-Bad rally and the Anti-Evil protest demonstration.

11:41 PM PST :: comments: 0

I got a flier in the mail today. It was an invitation to an "Anti-Crime March" Here is a portion of the flier:



Soooo...we're having a march to protest crime? Is there a growing pro-crime faction that needs to get nipped in the bud?Are we trying to convince people who are pro-crime to change their stance? Are we sending a message to the pro-crime politicians who are running for office?

I've got it: we're trying to get our legislators to pass a law that makes crime illegal!

-wink

---

2002.10.28

Accepting the action but condemning the inspiration?

10:27 PM PST :: comments: 1

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post which followed a similar line of reasoning as this article.

In the comments of that post, Moonie asks some very interesting questions. I'm quoting her comments here:

Hard to agree with the the person who agrees that sodomy laws should be abolished when he explains that he wishes this to happen so the spread of AIDS will speed up and rid us of all godless homos quicker... Is this even slightly related to loving the sinner, hating the sin? Accepting the action but condemning the inspiration?

Moonie has captured my struggle very well in the first part of her comment. Supporting the war is hard when I feel that Bush's reasons are at best--bad, and at worst--abhorrent.

Then she asks a terribly good question. Not the "loving the sinner, hating the sin" question--I don't think this has anything to do with that. She asks "Accepting the action but condemning the inspiration?" and that's where things get interesting. I do accept the action. And I do condemn the inspiration. Now here's the challenge: I think that inspiration/motivation is as important, if not more important, than the action itself when determining the morality of an action.

So how can I accept the action and condemn the motive if motive trumps action? Because in this case, the action is a corporate action. There is not merely one motive behind this action because there is not simply one person doing the action. Any corporate action is going to have mixed motives except in the most extraordinary cases. I cannot be responsible for other people's motives--only my own.

I support war against Saddam. I do so for moral reasons (and at least Michael Kelly and Jonathan Chait agree with me, for what that's worth). Therefore it is a moral action to support the war.

My neighbor (for sake of arguement, lets call him President Bush) also supports war against Saddam. For the sake of arguement, let's say that President Bush supports war for immoral reasons. Then it is an immoral action for him to support the war, even though it is the same action that I am taking.

Same action. Different motives.

So let me put my support for the war this way: I support this war, but I do not support President Bush.

-wink