Stand By Your Ground

The death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman has resulted in several things, though curiously not yet an arrest.  One result is a focus on the so-called "Stand your Ground" law adopted by Florida.  That law provides that a person may use deadly force and has no "duty to retreat" when that person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the imminent death of or great bodily harm to that person or another, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

"Reasonably" is a word vague on its face, but one which lawyers and courts (and juries) have had to deal for quite some time.  An interesting question is whether with respect to this law the reasonableness standard is objective or subjective.  One hopes it is not subjective, as some of us may feel their death or great bodily harm is imminent in various circumstances where it is not; or, I should say, where a reasonable person in similar circumstances would not.  That's what the objective standard is about, normally.  Some of us may be abnormally fearful or downright paranoid, and I like to think that the Florida legislature didn't contemplate allowing them to "stand their ground" in all cases where such fear or paranoia is in play.

Then there is the word "imminent."  Just what is that supposed to mean?  Courts given no statutory definition may resort to dictionaries or legislative history (e.g., debates, legislative memoranda).  Legislative history is sometimes very absent when it comes to state laws.  And why is deadly force acceptable to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony?  Is it meant that the "forcible felony" in question is directed to the person using deadly force, or is it the case that any bystander to such a felony (or what is "reasonably believed" to be such a felony) may shoot the person "reasonably believed" to be committing such a felony?

At least when it comes to a bystander shooting a presumed felon, or someone reasonably believed to be in the course of causing the death of or great bodily harm to a third person, there must be some concern I would think regarding the fact that bystanders/witnesses make mistakes, sometimes very serious ones.  It is not unusual in law schools and "pre-law courses" for a professor to demonstrate the confused state of witnesses to an important event by staging a "surprise visit" (to use a Clockwork Orange phrase) or some such thing for the benefit of a class.  In my case, a student came barging into the classroom, engaged in a brief struggle with the professor and then jumped out of a window.  The professor then called various of us to the front of the room and asked us questions regarding what had taken place and the appearance of the "culprit."  The results were sobering indeed.  To this day, I'm always leery of eyewitness testimony.  Sometimes, though, that's all the evidence one has.

I suspect that this is one of those laws which will require a good deal of interpretation, which will mean that several cases will have to go through the court system, including appeals, until there is a body of law defining its application in some necessarily less than definitive sense.  That is not a good thing, as it would mean that a lot of people will have to be shot, stabbed, or otherwise subject to deadly force to get the higher courts to interpret the law.  Possibly, the legislature may step in and clarify the law as well.  I've heard that certain of the sponsors to the legislation have said that the law should not apply in this case, as it seems that Zimmerman took it upon himself to chase Martin, rather than just "standing his ground."  One hopes that the courts will make a similar interpretation, but there is no requirement that they do so.

Such laws raise serious concerns in our gun-happy nation.  It is not surprising that given the language of the law, law enforcement and prosecutors may feel some hesitancy in arresting and prosecuting suspects.  The result then may well be what is taking place now, the protests and parades and omnipresent media coverage which also raise issues (such as where on earth will one find an impartial jury?).  The law generally is a vastly complicated beast, difficult to handle.  This particular law has its share of complications, all of them unfortunately becoming pertinent after someone has been subjected to "deadly force."

That Old Time Religion

I first heard this song sung while watching the film Inherit the Wind, Hollywood's portrayal of what is popularly called the Scopes Monkey trial, which was a peculiarly American event over what should be a non-issue which it seems will forever be an issue here in these United States.  It didn't make a favorable impression, nor was it intended to, I think.  The religious in that film appeared stupid and bigoted and likely were meant to; so, they bellowed the old song in a fiery and threatening fashion.

It seems it will not go away, this kind of religion; not here, in any case.  Though it is somewhat odd for a Catholic politician to be stoking the flames, one knows that someone will, somewhere, somehow.  Inevitably, there will be a concern particularly regarding sex, which is always a fascination to the evangelical it seems.  But now the righteous are also concerned about that disease or condition they are pleased to call "secularism."

Clearly, there is a kind of religion which conceives of God as a law-giver, issuing commands bewilderingly comprehensive which must be followed and which govern human conduct.  This kind of religion presumes that God is the source of morality and that the failure to believe in this kind of God fosters immorality.  It isn't clear to me why this is the case.  There is quite a bit of evidence which, when impartially considered, establishes that high standards of morality have and can be derived and followed without the need for divine commands.  Perhaps those who believe that such commands are needed are simply expressing the fact that they themselves would not be inclined to be moral unless the wrath of God would be roused if they were not.  It's more probable, of course, that they fundamentally mistrust their fellow humans and feel that belief in an angry God is needed to keep others in line.

A secular nation need not be anti-religious, however.  A secular nation should be religiously neutral, in more than one sense.  That is what is intended by those who insist that church and state should be separate.  We do not have a problem because the state is anti-religious in this country, though there are evidently some who would like it to be.  The problem we face in this country is that there are religious people who are not satisfied with a state which is neutral towards religion.  They want the state to be religious--provided, of course, that it is appropriately religious; that the religion it espouses is that old time religion.

This problem is part of what Sidney Hook addressed when he wrote of the latest "failure of nerve" about 70 years ago.  Hook was atheist; I am not.  Nonetheless, I have the same concerns he had regarding those who want a religious nation.  It's already been noted by many that groups like the Taliban want such a nation or nations as well.  That's not necessarily to compare our evangelicals with the Taliban, but to point out that a religious nation which conceives of God as issuing divine commands governing human thought and conduct will necessarily be one which will not tolerate certain beliefs and certain conduct.  That kind of nation will not be democratic.

Furor in Discourse

I frequent a philosophy forum, and there among other things I sometimes follow the advice of Wallace Stevens and, apparently, infuriate philosophers rather than follow them.  In one case, I was accused in response of being a fraud and was the target of a profanity-laced tirade.  I don't think I was being exceedingly provocative at the time, so I was somewhat surprised at this.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think this kind of anger is typical in our discourse, and becomes more and more prevalent.  We see it especially in our politics, which is now particularly invasive of our lives given the fact that we have the unpleasant task of electing a president just ahead of us.  It is combined with a hyperbolic rhetoric; for example, we are told we are engaged in a "battle for the soul of America." We have a politician seeking election proclaiming that the current incumbent, as well as his rival for nomination, seek to use the power of government to tell us how to act, while all the time he himself is diligently telling us how we should act.  We are warned that "class warfare" is imminent, and why not?  We are constantly at war with something, literally or figuratively.  We are perpetually at war, as some have noted.

Although it cannot plausibly be called "discourse" we see it also, of course, in talk radio and TV as practised by pundits.  One wonders in their case how much of it is mere pretense; being angry and obnoxious is something they may feel is required as a condition of their success.  Cable news channels are beginning to "sell" their coverage of the political campaign in a manner reminiscent of commercials for professional wrestling.

Cynical efforts to arouse emotion are not new, of course.  They are not peculiar to us or our times.  But we may be more inclined to respond to them because they are omnipresent, in a manner that even the media mavens of the recent past could not foresee.  There is no avoiding them, now, unless one is willing to stop looking or listening.

Perhaps we should, but it's no longer clear that is possible.  What might be more useful is a deliberate effort to see them for what they are, and treat them accordingly.

This will require some effort, but effort is good as it requires thought, and thought is good.  When listening to some politician or pundit, we should make it a rule to ask ourselves what he/she is trying to gain.  We should notice the strings that they seek to pull--we should assume that we are being manipulated in some fashion.  Perhaps we should read or take courses in rhetoric and logic, to learn to recognize the tricks played on us (intentionally or not, they're still tricks) and understand them.

Consider it a kind of self-defense, a precautionary empowerment, like carrying a concealed weapon (so popular, these days).  There are far more people intent on depriving us of our minds than our lives, and we can defend our minds without putting others in danger.

The Problem of Good

We're all familiar enough (perhaps all too familiar) with the Problem of Evil.  Some, like Mr. Santorum, will attribute at least part of the responsibility for evil to Satan, who for one reason or another is evil and so seeks to do evil, avidly, and who for one reason or another is allowed to do evil by an all-powerful God who is not at all evil.  Some will maintain evil is but the result of God's goodness, as that goodness would not be recognizable but for evil.  Some will argue that it is the result of free will, with which we are endowed, again, for one reason or another.

To the extent that evil is associated with the undeniable fact that things that do us harm happen, and creatures including our fellow humans exist and do us harm, however, most of us will agree at least that there is evil and it is a problem.  Most of us will also agree that there is good, but will not think of it as a problem.

Good is not a problem because good is consistent with the conception of God as good and desiring, or propagating, good.  If God were evil, then good would be a problem in the sense that evil is problem.  And we would likely in that case argue about the Problem of Good; how is it that an all-powerful evil God permits good things to happen?  Perhaps we would refer to a Good Satan in that event.

If evil is associated with what does us harm, though, good is associated with what benefits us.  Good can be as fortuitous as evil.  Natural events over which we have no control can benefit us as well as harm us.  So can the intentional actions of our fellow humans.

Evil becomes the "Problem" it has been referred to over the centuries because of the presumption that God and/or the universe is ultimately good.  Good would be an equivalent "Problem" if we presumed that God and/or the universe is ultimately evil.  Absent our imposition of these attributes on God and/or the universe, there would be no "problem" with which to concern ourselves.

There is a problem with the "Problem" and with similar problems.  It is that they are abstract in the worst sense of that word.  Though derived from our experience of concrete realities, they are disconnected from them.  They do not involve minimizing the harm that evil does, or maximizing the benefits resulting from evil.  Though ostensibly addressed to the determination of the cause or reason for evil, their resolution--if they can be resolved--will have no effect on the events which compel us to propound them.  We will continue to experience harm regardless of whether evil is an independent supernatural force like Satan, or due to original sin, or anything else.

Words like "maximize" or "minimize" are disdained by the great thinkers among us as they are associated with common problems, not ultimate ones.  But there are some evils we can minimize or even prevent, regardless of the ultimate origin of evil. I think it is clear that we should emphasize addressing common problems.  Perhaps we'll find that when common problems have been resolved the ultimate ones will no longer interest us.