Part II | III | IV | V | VI| VII

Capitalism’s reputation has taken a beating in light of the recent financial crisis.  According to politicians and pundits from both sides of the spectrum, capitalism is to blame.  Not so, say Austin Hill and Scott Rae, who argue in their new book The Virtues of Capitalism that capitalism is our best bet.  In fact, according to Hill and Rae, capitalism “remains the preferred economic system, even the necessary economic system, for any society that upholds a true sense of human rights.”

Hill and Rae approach economics from a distinctly Christian perspective, showing capitalism to be both consistent with and supported by the Bible’s teachings.  Contrary to some, the sharing of goods as described in Acts does not advocate socialism.   The sharing of goods was voluntary, as opposed to forced.  Moreover, the authors show that economics itself is deeply intertwined with moral issues.  Economic conditions can act as a powerful motivator either to encourage or discourage virtuous conduct. “[B]e honest and ask yourself: Is it ever more difficult to be the kind of spouse or parent that one aspires to be, when the economy is slow and personal finances are scarce? … [W]hen finances are plentiful, can the enjoyment of material goods enable a person to avoid or neglect other important areas of their relationships?  And a final question… can economics impact one’s relationship with their God.”

Several misconceptions about capitalism are also dealt with.  These include myths such as “The rich get richer at the expense of the poor,” “Capitalism is based on greed,” and “Capitalism leads to overconsumption and materialism.”  Economics is not a zero-sum game, argue Hill and Rae, and is based on self-interest rather than greed (There’s an important distinction between the two).  They explicitly reject Ayn Rand’s response to the greed objection, which recognizes greed to be good.

Then, in plain and lucid language, Hill and Rae explain why the financial markets failed as they did.   They go all the back to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990′s and trace the events which led up to the housing bubble. The markets failed not because of capitalism, but chiefly because of  excessive government regulations, and the the reckless behavior that results when government intervenes to shield people from accountability.  In another chapter, Hill and Rae make the case that government intervention in free-markets is more of a hindrance than a help.  ”Generally speaking, government does not use resources as efficiently as do individual citizens and private enterprises.”

Still, the authors recognize that capitalism has its limits.  While it not may be the perfect system, it’s the best out of all we have.  ”Capitalism,” said Winston Churchill “is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.”  There are several pre-requisites that a society must fill before capitalism can flourish.  These are what Hill and Rae mean by the virtues of capitalism.  They list five such virtues, these being: creativity, initiative, cooperation, civility, and responsibility. Most important, however, is a stable moral system, which “is the sine qua non of the political system and the economic system. It reinforces the incentives provided by the political system, as it provides a moral foundation for personal habits and behaviors necessary for prosperity.”

Overall, it’s a great and easy to understand book.  One drawback, however, is that it’s a bit shallow.  For a deeper resource, I would recommend Jay W. Richard’s Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism Is The Solution and Not The Problem.

1. Where is Moral Knowledge? — An excellent essay by Dallas Willard on contemporary moral bewilderment and human condition.  A lecture is available here.
2. The Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God — Dr. James Beebe delivers a short talk on this theistic argument.  A separate paper is also available here.
3. Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage — An essay by Francis Beckwith on why this analogy fails.
4. Jay Richards, an Intelligent Design advocate and the author of Money, Greed, and God, has a blog which contains some very informative essays about capitalism and its relationship with Christianity
5. Are Old Testament Laws Evil? — Paul Copan’s contribution to William Lane Craig and Chad Meister’s God is Great, Good is Good.
6. The Debt Limit: Made Simple – A video from the Heritage Foundation that explains the current problem with our government’s out-of-control spending.

Upcoming book reviews:

• Austin Hill and Scott Rae, The Virtues of Capitalism: A Moral Case for Free Markets (InterVarsity: 2010)
• Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (HarperOne: 2009)
• James Thobaben, Health-Care Ethics: A Comprehensive Christian Resource (InterVarsity: 2009)
• Nigel Cameron and Charles Colson, Human Dignity in the Biotech Century: A Christian Vision for Public Policy (InterVarsity: 2004)

So even if I grant this pro-choice argument, it ends up proving nothing.  If anything, it backfires.  As it turns out, it is more of a rhetorical jab than a factually based argument.

As it turns out, politics is a general term that covers a large number of various sub-disciplines.  These include political theory (The study of the nature of government), comparative politics (The study of other political systems), political economy (The study of how politics and the economy relate to each other), and public law (The study of how different entities relate to each other). Chapter one deals with these various divisions within politics.

In the following chapters, Beckwith covers the relationship between the Christian citizen and liberal democracy.  In Matthew 22, Jesus instructed that because the image of Caesar was present on the coin presented to him, we have a duty to obey earthly governments.  To disobey government, which is an institution established by God, thus equates to disobeying God himself. Implicit in this, however, is the other realization that because the image of God is present on us that we also have a duty to obey God.  Thus, while Christians are subject to government authority, it is permissible in certain circumstances to disobey governments which are at conflict with Biblical values.

Beckwith also correctly notes that in some situations, it is permissible to support non-Christian candidates for political office (Mitt Romney, for example).  Christians “must not ignore their commitment to justice and the common good when assessing such a candidate.”

He notes that Aristotle’s idea that “Statecraft is soulcraft” is crucial to a Christian understanding of politics.  Beckwith defends what he calls a “perfectionist view of liberty and the human person,” which is the idea that “liberty is not merely the right to do good and that the role of government is to advance the common good.  It is called perfectionism since its defenders maintain that human beings share the same nature by which we can know what sort of goods, institutions, habits and actions help the human being fulfill his proper end or perfection.”  In scrutinizing the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists, the popular understanding of the separation of church and state is found lacking.  Because the government’s purpose is to advance the common good, it is permissible for it to endorse religious practices which aid in this task while simultaneously striking down other practices (Such as those of cults) which do not advance the common good.

Several arguments in favor of secular liberalism are also tackled and found inadequate.  I found his treatment of Robert Audi’s secular reason argument to be particularly helpful.   The division of  reasons into the categories of “secular” and “religious,” of which the former is treated as fact and the latter is treated as mere subjective opinion, is illusory.  ”At the end of the day, a reason is weak or strong, true or false.  Thus, ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ are not relevant properties when assessing the quality of reasons people may offer as part of their arguments.”  Highlighting a point made by Thomas Aquinas, Beckwith writes that “The difference between objects of faith and objects of reason… is not in their status as objectives of knowledge, but in how the knowledge is acquired by the human mind.”

Finally, Beckwith ends with a great chapter on the moral argument for the existence of God, which serves as a handy apologetic for the Christian faith.  Though I do wish Beckwith could have covered more content in this relatively short book, this is an unreasonable expectation from an introductory text.  Instead, Beckwith provides a helpful list of recommended books.

I strongly recommend Beckwith’s book for any Christians who are interested in a solid introduction to politics.

The idea that things have natural purposes or proper functions is not a truth that can be known only through special revelation.  Following Thomas Aquinas, it is a truth that can be known through both faith and reason.  The difference between articles of faith and articles of reason lies not in their status as truths (There is no such things as degrees of truths — something is either true or not true), but in how they are known. “A reason does not gain more or less truth by being ‘secular.’  For ‘secular,’ like ‘tall,’ ‘fat,’ ‘stinky’ or ‘sexy,’ has no bearing on the quality of the reason one may offer in an argument.”¹ The objector who argues that the concept of proper function has no place in ethical or political discussions because it is an article of faith is thus confusing the order of knowing with the order of being.

Something is functioning properly and according to its natural purpose² if it is operating in the way that it was intended to.  The purpose of eyes is thus to see and of planes to fly.  Eyes which see well and planes which fly well are thus properly functioning; by the same token, eyes which cannot see and planes which cannot fly are not properly functioning.

Are these natural purposes imagined?  Evidently not.  Does it not seem right to say that nutrition is the purpose of eating, that mobility is the function of our legs, that filtration is the purpose of our kidneys, and that protection is the purpose of our immune system?  To deny this, I think, is pure absurdity.  Writes J. Budziszewski:

Take the power of breathing.  When we say that its purpose — viewed from another angle, its meaning — is to oxygenate the blood, are we making it up?  Plainly not.  The purpose isn’t in the eye of the beholder; it is an inference from the design of the lungs.  To say that the purpose of P is to bring about Q, two conditions must be satisfied. First, P must actually bring about Q. [Emphasis mine] This condition is satisfied because breathing does oxygenate the blood. Second, it must be the case that the fact that P brings about Q is necessary for explaining why there is P in the first place. [Emphasis mine] The condition is also satisfied, because apart from the oxygenation of blood there is no way to explain why the power to breath should have developed.  We can ascertain the purposes of the other features of our design in the same way that we ascertain the purpose of breathing.³

The very act of arguing against belief in natural purposes on the basis that it is a false view assumes that natural purposes exist; namely, that the purpose of the mind is to know truth.  The detractor of this position could not urge us, therefore, to believe his position because it is true — for on his own view, the mind does not have the purpose of knowing truth.  We might as well believe in falsehoods.  Rational discourse is thus undermined by denying that natural purposes exist.

Inferring from the biology of our sexual organs, it is evident that their purpose to procreate⁴. Indeed, it is pleasurable, but pleasure is not the purpose of sex.  If pleasure were indeed its purpose, then we could use it to justify acts such as rape, pedophilia, and necrophilia on the basis that they feel good.  Thus, the proper function of our sexual organs is to function in a way which fosters procreation.  Homosexual acts, which go against the natural purpose of our sexual organs, result in their improper function.  Moreover, procreation fulfills the two criteria outlined by Budziszewski (See above), whereas pleasure does not.

The argument, of course, is not merely that homosexual acts result in the improper function of our sexual organs, but that they are immoral because of this. But how might we move from a merely descriptive premise to a prescriptive premise?  After all, “is” does not imply “ought.”  In responding to this charge (Known as the naturalistic fallacy), we need to highlight the distinction between “predicative” and “attributive” adjectives.⁵

A predicative adjective, according to philosopher Peter Geach⁶, is something that means the same no matter what it is applied to. Roundness, for example, would count as an predicative adjective.  No matter what we attribute it to — a round coin, a round marble, a round ball, etc… It still has the same meaning.  An attributive adjective, by contrast, has a meaning that varies depending on what we predicate it of.  So for example, a bright student, a bright light, and a bright future all use different meanings of the adjective “bright.”

Good is most clearly an attributive adjective.  A “good” car is obviously different from a “good” ear.  But what does it mean to say that a car is good or that an ear is good?  According to Geach, something is good if it functions in the way that it should (Proper function).  On this understanding of good, a healthy heart is good because it is properly functioning according to its purpose, which is to pump blood.  A bad heart is thus one that does not accomplish its intended purpose.  This allows us then to generate a prescriptive conclusion from a descriptive premise.  When something functions according to its natural purpose (description), then it is good (prescription).   And because good is something that ought to be pursued, the proper thing to do with a bad heart is to help it be a good heart.  If it were impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is,” the discipline of medicine would make no sense.⁷

It follows from this that because homosexual acts go against the natural purpose of our sexual organs, they are immoral.

1. Francis J. Beckwith, Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 2010) p.133
2. By natural purpose, I do not mean that something functions properly if it occurs naturally
3. J. Budziszewski, The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Wilmington, DE: ISI. 2009) p.12
4. Specifically, it is “the loving procreative partnership of the spouses,” as stated by Budziszewski via email correspondence
5. The following is reproduced and modified from my previous entry
6. Peter Geach, “Good and Evil” Analysis. 1956
7. J. Budziszewski pointed this out to me in email correspondence