Classical just war theory’s jus ad bellum requirement of proportionality means that not every offense requires war. There is an analogy to argument here, however imperfect: not every disagreement, moral or factual, requires that we argue. I may be right about x, but I don’t have to argue with you about it. This is especially the case when I will never convince you.
I think this capture’s the spirit of the Summus Pontifex’s recent remarks on the value of pushing the Catholic positions on abortion, contraception, and gay marriage. Perhaps the Holy Father has noticed that, though the Universal Church’s view on gay marriage contains no admixture of error, the likelihood of its success with this argumentation is very low and the costs are very great:
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent.The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
This is not terribly unreasonable. This is made somewhat easier by the fact that I don’t share any of his views. Nonetheless, I have a lot of opinions that just do not deserve arguments–not the least because (1) I can only expect so much time, attention, and effort from people who disagree with me; (2) I only have so much time and energy to devote to convincing other people. We expend resources when we argue; we ought to use them judiciously.
So it’s surprising to me to see behavior like this:
Providence College, a Roman Catholic school in Rhode Island, has canceled a lecture in support of same-sex marriage on Thursday by a gay philosophy professor, citing a church document that says that “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.â€
You get the idea from the Pope that they’re not that fundamental. But in any case, the College has reversed itself, thankfully.
Hey John, I like the analogy with just war theory – that not every disagreement is worth an argument. The calculative reasoning between the ways we arrive at the two views seems isomorphic. But now I’m wondering whether this is where the ‘alternate models for argument’ argument might be useful — there may be some disagreements not worth fighting over, but they may be worth a conversation. In this case it’s not like one might mobilize for total war, but that diplomacy can clarify the matter….