Richard B. Miller

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION, ALTRUISM, AND THE LIMITS OF CASUISTRY

This essay argues that the ethics of humanitarian intervention cannot be readily subsumed by the ethics of just war without due attention to matters of political and moral motivation. In the modern era, a just war draws directly from self-benefitting motives in wars of self-defense, or indirectly in wars that enforce international law or promote the global common good. Humanitarian interventions, in contrast, are intuitively admirable insofar as they are other-regarding. That difference poses a challenge to the casuistry of humanitarian intervention because it makes it difficult to reason by analogy from the case of war to the case of humanitarian intervention. The author develops this point in dialogue with Michael Walzer, the U.S. Catholic bishops, and President Clinton. He concludes by showing how a casuistry of intervention is possible, developing a motivational rationale that draws on the Golden Rule.

Terror, religion, and liberal thought

Acknowledgments1. The Problem of Religious Violence2. 9/11 and Varieties of Social Criticism3. Rights to Life and Security4. Toleration, Equality, and the Burdens of Judgment5. Respect and Recognition6. Religion, Dialogue, and Human Rights7. Liberal Social Criticism and the Ethics of BeliefAppendix 1: The Right to War and Self-DefenseAppendix 2: Is Attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda Justified?NotesSelect BibliographyIndex

Just War, Civic Virtue, and Democratic Social Criticism: Augustinian Reflections*

Europe since the outbreak of war has been comparatively quiet, and in consequence indiscriminate hatred has been far less noticeable than it was during the last war. But as the conflict grows more serious, we cannot expect this state of things to last; already there is less moderation in public speeches and private conversation than at the outset. Worse, there is already suppression and distortion of truth “in the interests of the state”; and news has become propaganda and advocacy of a case. One man’s lies are not justified because they contradict another’s.

Rules of Law and God: Liberal Democratic Reflections on Freedom, Equality, and Religion

Our topic is the rule of law and the rule of God and, more specifically, the proper role of religious citizens who seek to enshrine their religious convictions in public policy and practice. Such adherents of “political religions,” as Mark Lilla uses that term, are infrequently apathetic about public affairs. Quite the contrary: religious believers often aim to shape others’ behavior and opportunities by having their religious values embodied in law and policy and enforced through the coercive powers of the state. That aspect of religion should remind us of a more general fact about how religions—and not only political religions—often behave: among the many things that religions do, they argue. They make claims over and against other positions, points of view, settled convictions, and pictures of the good life. Religions are not necessarily tolerant. Even when they are tolerant, religions often find it difficult to accede to other forms of authority. When they do accede, religions typically do so on terms that they themselves set—on terms established by their own authoritative teachings and traditions. In that way, as Andrew March’s discussion of Islamic jurisprudence makes plain, religions seek to offer legitimation to norms or principles established by other nonreligious authorities.

Book Review: A Christology Of The HeartJesus Christ and Christian Vision by OttatiDouglas F.. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1989. 163 pp.

preaching is replete with petty legalism and mediocre moralizing. Apparently, a p rope r focus on holy Torah can deliver us from our bondage to our petty laws. Achtemeier s discussion of Torah as a positive, graceful gift of God for h u m a n life is excellent and an invigorating invitation to journey into territory where many of us have not been before. As an enthusiastic lectionary-based preacher , I was duly chided and challenged by Achtemeier s listing of texts that failed ever to appear in the First Lesson in the C o m m o n Lectionary. In rejecting many Old Testament texts as too ho t to handle , the C o m m o n Lectionary indulges in some unwarranted ideological perversion of its own. I have resolved systematically to preach from some of these texts unduly rejected by the Lectionary. This book is a challenge to the preacher , an excellent introduct ion for the seminarian, and a friend to all those dear people who languish in the pews on Sunday morning , listening for a word which is not only interesting but also true.

10.95 (paper).

Within Western culture, a variety of voices has sought to justify and limit the use of force between individuals and groups. For centuries, various religious, ecclesiastical, moral, and legal sources have deposited a mixed body of wisdom as Western culture has faced new developments in the machinations of war. Generally, three approaches have addressed the problem of force: pacifist, just-war, and religious crusades traditions. Of these, the first two have survived the dangers of anachronism.