Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapters 8-10

I would say chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 require very careful reading. In chapter 7, Nick gives a lengthy description of political emotions of the eudaimonists. I have avoided giving the explanation of the finer points then and just give the final bid of his argument. In chapter 8, Nick argues why Augustine broke away from the eudaimonist tradition. The chapter is titled 'Augustine's Break With Eudaimonism'. And chapter 9 is titled 'Moral Vision of Scripture in Antiquity, and chapter 10 'Characterizing Life-and History-Goods'. And again a lengthy discussion on political emotions is laid out. The discussions in fact bring out the rigor of Nick's scholarship! This post combines chapter 8, 9 and 10.

The Stoics held that tranquility is necessary to lead a eudaimon life, a life that is well lived. However, the Stoics also believed that since the tranquility can be disturbed by external factors or those outside of me, one should value only those that are within one's control. Be virtuous and be happy! That would be a Stoic.

But the Parepatetics would say that there are external factors or those outside that are helpful for me in me becoming a virtuous person. So a Parepatetics may value an external good or those outside. However, the purpose for loving this good or those outside of me is so that I may become a more virtuous person. And if I lose this good or those outside, I grieve! Aristotle's eudaimonia is a sort of egoism.  Augustine goes further. Augustine thinks that one is to love one's neighbour as one loves oneself (just as his master Jesus Christ taught). So to value an external good or those outside is not just to help me become more virtuous, but because it/he/she is love-worthy. And if I lose this person, I grieve not just because I lose someone I prize or value because this person would help me to become more virtuous, but because I have compassion for the person. My life thus is then not going well if I grieve because I lose someone close. 

For the eudaimonists, the two way relational traffic with others is not really the emphasis; it's one way. For Augustine, it's a two-way traffic; it's about social relationship! Since rights are about social relationship, this way of looking about life can only account for a theory of rights. An account of life that takes into consideration the interest of the individual self alone cannot account for a theory of right. Augustine's conception of life is thus unlike Aristotle's well-lived life that concerns only with how well I live my individual life; Augustine's conception of life is about well-going life; or rather flourishing life, that takes into consideration the surrounding conditions. 

Introduction of Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs

Besides other posts, I am going to be blogging about Justice: Rights and Wrongs, written by philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University. This is not a book review, but a summary of each chapter. I have read the book twice, and this is my third reading of the book. Most of the books I have read do not get the privilege of being read twice, let alone thrice. C S Lewis Mere Christianity, Vinoth Ramachandra's God's That Fail  and Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Things to do? are the only three books I have read twice, as far as I could remember right now. The Bible and Wolterstorff's book Justice are going to be the only two books I would have read thrice or more! Since this is my third reading, I want to believe that I have understood him well.

The book has 17 chapters, besides Preface and Introduction in the beginning and Epilogue at the end. So it's as if it has 20 chapters. This post will summarise Preface and Introduction together.

Nick begins to engage with the concept of justice after two life-changing events. The first one is on Apartheid South Africa in 1976, where he witnessed the Afrikaners denying justice to the 'blacks' and 'coloured' people. The second event in on Palestinian  issue in 1978, where he heard the Palestinians speak out against injustice meted out to them. These events energised him to speak out against injustice like no other events before. 

Nick is explicit that he is a Christian and his account of justice is a theistic account. Even so, his account of justice is based on inherent right that an individual possesses. He begins in the Introduction by stating that there are oppositions to the concept of rights as justice from within and outside the religious tradition he comes from. Some say that ethics of care is more appropriate; others argue against right-talks due to political and social reasons. Some say that the idea of right as justice gives rise to individualistic way of thinking and therefore it should be discouraged. Right-proponents are alleged to have said, 'this is my right; that is my right etc.' and focus so much on individual right, and thus fail to talk about care, responsibility, duty, obligation etc. Nick argues that it is one thing to care, but another thing to be cared; it is one thing to fail to do one's moral duty and thus wrong a person, but another thing to be a victim and be wronged. The language of care, duty, obligation etc cannot accommodate the story of the victim, of the one being wronged. Thus, doing away with the language of rights is to entail doing away with the story of the victim, and this is something we cannot afford. Theory of justice requires language and concept of rights, and we cannot do away with rights based concept of justice. This is Nick's defence of rights based idea of justice. 

Nick says that there are two primary conceptions of justice in the western tradition: justice as right order and the concept of justice based on inherent rights. Former is Plato's view and those who agree with him and the latter is his view and those who have argued something similar to his view even earlier. Aristotle's concept of justice as equality is possibly the third conception. Nick is going to argue for the concept of justice based on inherent right. But he will also be rejecting what proponents of justice as right order say about rights based justice which is that rights based idea of justice emerged much later. Nick will argue  that right-theorists position emerged much before Medieval period and therefore is not of recent origin and that this concept does not necessarily give rise to excessive individualism.

Church, State and Public Justice

Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views

Edited By: P.C.Kemeny

Authentic Books

Page 254

The book presents the viewpoint of five schools on how matters of Church, State and Public Justice should be dealt with. It has the position of the Catholics, Anabaptist, Principled Pluralist, Classical Separation perspective and Social Justice perspective. After each position is explained, the rest of the schools provide comments and thus readers are given good materials to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each school.

I picked up this book because I wanted some clarification, and I would say I was provided sufficient information. As a student of theology my interest has been primarily on political theology and eschatology. I am quite aware of the already-and-not-yet tension when it comes to the idea of the kingdom of God. My question was when I pray "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" how much do I let the aspect of 'already' come into play specially in the domain of political thought. When I read the Anabaptist position in the book, presented by the well-known theologian Ron Sider, I could very well identify myself with him at many point. I thought that used to be me! But even before I came to chapter 4 of Ron Sider, I would say I have found my answer through the writing of Clarke E. Cochran, who outlined the Catholic perspective. One commentator pointed out that Ron Sider's position has a weak concept of the State. I agree. At least for me my understanding of Church-State relationship was at some point fuzzy because I had a weak understanding of the theory of a State. After having read more on Moral and Political Philosophy, I began to wonder how Political Philosophy and Political Theology should relate to one another. And I found that the position outlined by the Catholic position provides the most robust and thought through framework on how a Christian church need to relate with the State. This does not mean that I agree with all the detail in the chapter. In fact Dr. Cochran himself says that not all the Catholics have a uniform position on the finer details. 

Dr. Cochran outlines that Catholic church has four features on how Church and State can relate with regard to matters of public justice: 

Cooperation: This refers to the way the church works together with the government on matters regarding fighting poverty, providing international relief etc. 

Challenge: This takes the form of challenging government policy through agitation, lobby etc.  For example, Catholic Americans  may challenge the policy of the US government to invade Iraq. 

Transcendence: This is about seeking to propagate one's religious belief. This sort of thing transcends the mission of the state, but is part and parcel of being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Competition: This is when Catholic run institution like College compete with government funded institution.

The book would be useful for any Christian student of ethics, political science or political theology. In fact, if people of other religious traditions wish to know the kind of thing that Christians believe, and how the beliefs are applied in political institutions this book may shed light.But non-Americans can skip Chapter 2 which basically is an interpretation of how the framers of US Constitution intended to maintain separation between state and the church.

My comments on the idea of human rights of Amartya Sen and Nicholas Wolterstorff

In his chapter on Human Rights and Global Imperatives, Prof. Amartya Sen did not attempt to spend considerable time to ground the foundation for human right. He compared importance of the assertion of human right to the importance of happiness. But for a country like India, where discourse on human right has not be a part of the intellectual tradition, I would want that Prof. Sen goes further. Had the conviction that all humans are equal is not grounded sturdily, and therefore if certain members of the society are considered as lesser human, human right would not become such a pervasive quest.

Prof. Sen did comment that not all rights are part of human right. But in the endorsement of the inclusion of  "second generation" rights in UN declaration on Human Right, he did include right which should have not been part of human right. For example,"right to join trade union" should not have been part of human right, though such right is an important right. Though one would wish to see nation-states legislating such right as part of legal right, including such right in the sanctum of human right could open the door for all sort of rights to come under human right, and thus makes human right lose its steam. 

Prof. Wolterstorff's cogently argued that theistic grounding of human right is more plausible than secular grounding. Besides providing grounding for human right on theistic foundation, I wish that he would go on to address some contemporary relevant cases. The most common cases of human right violation takes place in the context of state maintaining its national security. But maintaining national security can take place in diverse ways. For example, the Burmese government's crackdown on civil right activist in the name of maintaining national security is different from that of Colombo's crackdown on Tamil Tigers, and these are different from operation on Al-Qaeda is being conducted. These are thorny issues, but they are live issues that need global debates. Whether it's Sen or Wolterstorff, I find some very important human right issues being skipped in the book. 

As an agnostic Prof. Sen may be reluctant to ground human right on theistic foundation. However, if that is the only intellectually compelling reason, I see no reason why one must not endorse the approach. Some of the points Wolterstorff left out, Sen included them in his essay. Taking Wolterstorff theistic grounding, and enfleshing it with Sen's material would make a book complete.One line of endorsement in favour of Wolterstorff's says, " Justice is the most impressive book on justice since Rawl's A Theory of Justice." Similar line is found in Sen's work too-- I believe that Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice is the most important contribution to the subject since John Rawl's A Theory of Justice..." Well, I do endorse the books too. Both the authors have very important words for those who are concerned for human flourishing. 

The idea of Human Right in Nicholas Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs

Nicholas Wolterstorff is the Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology at Yale University. He has taught at Harvard, Oxford, Notre Dame, Princeton and others. His many books Until Justice and Peace Embrace, John Locke and the Ethics of Belief, Thomas Reid and the story of Epistemology and Justice in Love.

A human right is a right attached to the status of being a human being. Not all kinds of rights are human rights. The right not to be tortured is a human right. UN Declaration on Human Right-- example, that everyone has a right to periodic vacations with pay is not a human right.

It seems unlikely that secular grounding of human right would succeed, given that even after many attempts it has not succeeded. Kant adopted 'capacities approach' to ground human right. “Capacities approach” may roughly be defined as as that 'capacity to set ends through reason as contrasted with acting on the basis of impulse, addiction and the like. The problem with adopting 'capacities approach' is that people born with mental impairment and who would not be able to reason would have to be left out. For somewhat similar reason the secular grounding of Ronal Dworkin and Alan Gewirth too failed.

The Bible tells that humans are created in God's image. And thisis the most common grounding for theistic account. God loves each and every human being equally and permanently, and that worth bestowed by the love of God serves as the basis for human right.

Richard Rorty considers that grounding of human right in human dignity is 'outmoded'. To get more people to embrace human right culture, the far more effective mean is to tell 'sad and sentimental stories” to evoke sympathy, not find a philosophical grounding. Wolterstorff disagrees. The Serbian soldiers raped and killed Bosnian women in the latter's faces and voices; and the Nazis guards in the faces and voices of their Jewish victims. Yet sympathy was not evoked. As a long as a man believes that the other person does is unworthy of better treatment, seeing her face or hearing her voice will not ordinarily evoke sympathy. Conviction, therefore, must be engaged too. Conviction that this human person too has great worth.

A right is a legitimate claim to some good in life of the right-bearer. “So a right against someone is a legitimate claim against that person to their doing or refraining from doing something with respect to oneself.” To dishonour that right is to wrong someone. Rights are normative social relationship; and honouring these social relationships are foundational to human community.

Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.

This is a picture of a 39 years old lady by the name Irom Sharmila. She has been fasting, ( without food and water) since November 4, 2000. Her demand is that the Government of India  withdraw Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, (AFSPA) from Manipur and the neighbouring north eastern states.

But what is AFSPA? 

AFSPA was first introduced in the "Naga inhabited areas" of Assam and Manipur in 1958 to tackle the Nagas who were, and are, demanding independence. Since then it has been extended to other states of the north east and Jammu & Kashmir. The Act gave power even to a non-commissioned officer of the Indian army to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting or is suspected of acting in contravention of any law...  in areas declared as 'disturbed'; and the official responsible for such death is granted legal immunity and cannot be prosecuted. Countless number of people have been subjected to gross violation of human rights under the Act and the officials who committed such atrocities never ever faced trial. Amnesty International has criticized the Act, but till date it is  still in place.

For many years I have endorsed the Act. My logic was that if the Act is lifted, the extremists will take over and the territory of the Indian Union will shrink. I believe that is still the position of the Government and so the Act still remains. My view on the subject began to shift after I picked up writings on Human Rights. I began to ask myself if it is morally right to violate human rights to protect part of a territory that a state claims as its own.Or putting it differently, is it morally right for mainstream Indians to violate human rights of the north eastern people to retain the latter's territory as part of India? So the question that I began to ask  myself  was whether protecting the state's territory is more important or protecting human rights is more important. 

If I worship Bharat Mata (Mother India) protecting her territory would be part of my expression of my allegiance to her. But I don't worship Bharat Mata. Rather I worship Jesus Christ, through whom all human beings are created and who allows states to be formed to protect human lives and bring about common good of all. Therefore I cannot endorse people of certain regions violating human rights of other regions to protect the interest of the former. Or putting in differently, I am of the view that human rights  of certain people trumps the interest of the state to protect its territory. Human rights of the citizens cannot be subservient to the interest of the state!

Even in an instance when the state's agent violates human rights the agent has to be brought to the court of law. AFSPA being imposed in a region for over 50 years as a state's policy, and 'guilty officials' never being brought before to the court to face trial of human rights violation is something I cannot endorse. I used to think Irom Sharmila was subverting the interest of the Indian Union; and I still do think she is. But  now I believe she is doing so because of her greater concern for human rights. I won't be surprised if she says, "It is not that I do not love India, it is just that I love humanity more". And though I am late to realise, I  would say Sharmila has got things in right perspective. With her I say "repeal AFSPA"!

Are the Christians responsible for terrorist activities in North East India?

It is not uncommon to come across the idea that Christian missionaries are responsible for terrorist activities in India's North East. Before I proceed to clarify the matter I wish to state that I am from northern part of Manipur in India's north east; and it's an area that has witnessed so much of unrest and killing over the last 60 years. So I am sharing this from first hand experience, and not as a distant observer writing through hearsay.

First of all, it would be debatable whether the whole thing is terrorist activities or freedom struggle movement. One side will read the matter as terrorist acts whereas the others will read it as freedom struggle. It depends on perspective! After all Bhagat Singh was a terrorist for British Raj, but for Indian nationalist he was a patriot. But since the post is written primarily to clarify the name of Christianity I won't take side. So I would prefer the term 'militants' instead of terrorists. They are militants ( because they are not moderates!).

The Nagas are roughly 90% Christians, with the remaining still counted as animists. Their number total around 2 millions. The Naga militants have taken to arms since 1950s, fighting against the government of India for the last 60 odd years. They are spread out over Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Myanmar. The other ethnic community among whom militancy is active is the Manipuri/Meetei. At one point of time there were 18 different groups from this community alone fighting against the Government of India. Even today there are various groups like RPF, KYKL, UNLF, PREPAK and KCP, with most of the groups split into different faction. These people are attributed as 88% Hindus approximately; 11% Muslim and 1% others. The third community among whom militancy is active is the Assamese. If one excludes the Bodos and the Bangladeshi migrants, the percentage of Hindus among Assamese may be around 85-90, the rest comprising of Christians, Buddhists, animists and others.

If one would attribute Naga militancy to Christianity then Manipuri/Meetei and Assamese militancy would have to be attributed to Hinduism ( and that of Kashmir to Islam. But let us leave out Kashmir for now). Attributing Naga militancy to Christianity while refusing to attribute to Hinduism the militancy of Assamese and Manipuri/Meetei is just unfair. But in reality attributing the whole militant groups to a particular religious group is to be ignorant of the social and political dynamic of the North East. If one is wishes to learn the truth and at least be concerned to be helpful in solving the problem it is important that one digs deeper the social and political dynamic of the people there.

Though religion is extremely important, for people in the North East India their ethnic identity is also extremely important. For political reasons which historians know better it is not easy for many people in the North East India to identify themselves as Indian just as much a Gujarati or a Malayali or a Bengali would do. So the above ethnic groups that are taking to guns to fight for whatever cause they believe in it is not due to their religious persuasion, but due the their ethnic affiliation. Though group like NSCN is believed to have adopted “Nagaland for Christ” their cause is still due to their ethnic affiliation.

The problem in the North East India is not just their own creation; India is equally responsible, if not more, for the problem there. So it is important that we all go deeper in our engagement in each other lives. Only then can we hope for something better. 

Save Palestinian Christians from extinction!

It is not uncommon to find Christians being faulted for the Crusades launched between 1095-1272. Thousands of Muslims and Jews were killed during the period. The worst hit, however, were the Christian themselves. It all started when Pope Urban II urged the kings and leaders of Christian Europe in 1095 to bring back the Holy Land from the Turks. One of the most important rallying point of the Pope's call was to aid the Eastern Christian suffering under the infidels i.e the Muslims. Little did they know that they would end up destroying the Eastern Christians beyond almost possible repair.

As the Crusaders arrived at Jerusalem the Muslims who treated the Christians with suspicion put them out of the city. The Crusaders who could not differentiate between Arab Christians and Arab Muslims ended up slaughtering them. Villagers who were Christians were also killed due to mistaken identity. The Pope also ordered Constantinople, the seat of the Eastern church, to be sacked to pay Crusades debt. This move dealt a crushing blow to the Byzantibe Empire which have been resisting the Turkish sweep into Europe. In all this ultimately it is the Christians weakening the Christians thereby allowing the Muslims to take over.

Isn't there a similar feature between Christian Zionism and Crusades? Proponents of both movements have the intention to be faithful Christians. But the effect of both efforts is similar.There are thousands of Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem. And when Christian Zionists gave unconditional support to the display of Israel's military might upon Palestinians, it leads to the reduction in the number of (Palestinian ) Christians in the land where the church was born. Many Christians believe that when all Jews return to Israel, Jesus will return. Such policy of bringing Jews from elsewhere has negative effect on those Palestinians: Christians and Muslims, because this involves taking land and livelihood from one group to give to the other. Christian Zionism, I believe, is mistaken because land belongs to God, and there is no tribe or tongue that has absolute ownership over land. The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, and we must share and live together. Because of faulty eschatological reading of the Bible many Christians ended up supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian, and that is a sad affair. Since the God of the Bible who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ is a God of justice, I cannot support the elevation of Israel to such status that undermines the existence of the Palestinians. With more and more Palestinian Christians being killed with the help of Christians in the West, and more of them migrating each year Christians will very soon extinct from the land from where it all began.

NB: I find the works of Stephen Sizer ( a pastor and a supporter of UCCF) and Chaukat Moucarry ( formerly worked with IFES ) quite helpful.