Agape and Violence?

The first question Timothy Jackson asks himself in Chapter Three ("Christian Love and Political Violence") of his book The Priority of Love is the following: How, if at all, may agape combat unjustifiable forms of violence, especially political violence?  The second question he asks is: Does agape itself ever act violently?  These are both ancient religious ethical questions and ones that still preoccupy contemporary conversations.  I realize that they are both somewhat abstract, but I would like to see you respond to each and to do so as creatively and as thoughtfully as you can (hence why I only assigned one blogpost for HW tonight).  Please use AT LEAST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF ABOUT SEVEN SENTENCES to respond to this prompt.

Traditions, Theories, and Potential Responses to Rwanda

During the past week we've considered a number of different traditions of American Foreign Policy and three different approaches to international relations (Realism, Liberalism and the Just War Theory).  Which traditions do you identify with and why?  Please use your approach to justify how you believe the United States should have responded to the crisis in Rwanda.  Please complete your response in AT LEAST 10 THOUGHTFUL AND WELL-CONSTRUCTED SENTENCES.  Thanks and looking forward to reading.

In Defense of "A Defense of Abortion"

In her classic article "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson famously insists "that we grant that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception."  This seems a bold move and one that is very difficult to overcome while defending abortion, but Thomson, nevertheless, presents -- at the very least -- a strong case in support of abortion rights.  What are the most convincing parts of Thomson's argument? Why? Be sure to cite at least three reasons from the text of the article.  Defend your reasoning in no fewer than 10 sentences.

Abortion and Feminism: Sidney Callahan and Naomi Wolf

In "Abortion and the Sexual Agenda," Sidney Callahan controversially compares "debates... about the fetus... [to those] once conducted about feminine personhood."  Moreover, Callahan continues, "just as women, or blacks, were considered too different, too underdeveloped, too 'biological,'  to have souls or to possess legal rights, so the fetus is now seen as merely 'biological' life, subsidiary to a person."  "As the most recent immigrants from nonpersonhood, feminists" must rise up and protect similarly oppressed fetal life, Callahan concludes.

At the same time, Naomi Wolf polemically writes that "the pro-choice movement has relinquished the moral frame around the issue of abortion."  She continues, "the women who come to a clinic that is truly feminist -- that respects women -- are entitled not only to their abortions but also to their sense of sin."

Do you agree or disagree with Callahan's argument and Wolf's claims?  In a post of no fewer than TEN SENTENCES, please respond thoughtfully to these excerpts and this question.

Abortion: Warren and Marquis

You've now had a chance to consider the early parts of the the Roe v. Wade argument and, in particular, the arguments of two ethicists, Mary Anne Warren and Don Marquis, on the issue of abortion.  Clearly, Warren's 1973 article (written in the year of the Roe decision) and Marquis's 1989 article (written a year before the Supreme Court decided another landmark case regarding abortion) differ markedly.  Leaving aside your own personal beliefs, which essay (Warren's or Marquis's) do you find more effective?  Why?  Be sure to cite at least THREE times from the texts (three times altogether, not three times each) as you defend your rationale.

The Abortion Debate: Initial Reactions

During the next few weeks, we will be considering the issue of abortion intensively from a variety of perspectives -- ethical, religious, political, and legal.  We will attempt to enrich our conceptual vocabulary and improve our arguments about the issue in the coming days.  That said, it's always interesting to see where we're starting on such a controversial issue.  With this in mind, please take NO LESS than 10 sentences to answer the following questions:  What are your reactions to the Frontline documentary?  And what are your views on abortion? 

The Virtues

In both The Peaceable Kingdom and the excerpt we read from Hauerwas's A Community of Character, Hauerwas evokes Aquinas and Aristotle and contends that "there must first be a character that somehow has an affinity for excellence or virtue, a character that loves what is noble and feels disgust at what is base."  Hauerwas relies heavily on the virtues to defend his writing on the "Christian" ethical life.  In the writings of the ancient Greeks and medieval Church thinkers, philosophers and theologians traditionally recognized four cardinal virtues: 1) prudence (the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time); 2) justice (the proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others); 3) temperance (the practice of self-control, abstention, and moderation); and 4) courage (forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation).  You're an aspiring religious ethicist or theological writer attempting to craft new cardinal virtues for a new era.  What four values would you choose and why?