Augustine on Why Special Regard for Our Fellow Citizens Is Moral

By -
"Further, all men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you." -- On Christian Doctrine

Comments

  1. djf12:34 PM

    How does the quote from Augustine support special regard for fellow citizens whom you've never met? Especially in comparison with noncitizens/illegals whom you interact with everyday? By Augustine's lights, wouldn't you have greater moral obligation to an undocumented alien who performs services for you than to citizens you have no dealings with and have never met or heard of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:45 PM

      "Especially in comparison with noncitizens/illegals whom you interact with everyday?"

      Why would you think this quote should support this "special regard"?

      Delete
    2. gcallah12:52 PM

      Ian, the contention is NOT that "Always, and in all circumstances whatever, we should have more regard for fellow citizens than for anyone else." That would be idiotic. The point is just that there is nothing inherently immoral to have special regard for those with whom you share some connection in some circumstances.

      Delete
    3. Ken B10:52 PM

      Right. This is of course exactly what open borders extremists loudly deny.

      Delete
  2. djf5:12 PM

    Gene, you put up the heading, "Augustine on Why Special Regard for OUR FELLOW CITIZENS is Moral." That's what prompted the question.

    I agree that citizenship can be seen as an instance of a connection with particular persons justifying special regard for those persons under Augustine's general principle. But I think you could be misunderstood as contending that Augustine had citizenship in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell4:30 PM

    I kind of learned just how insane the "open borders" position is, though I probably might fall into that category: Harry Binswanger (a Randroid) thinks that crossing the border should be like driving from Connecticut into New York. Yikes!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more