February 13, 2006
For once, he doesn't get it
Mr. Sullivan generally hits the nail right on the head. But this time he's really missed it. He has a takedown of a piece by Stanley Fish.
In one sense, Andrew is right in that postmodernism really doesn't generate in and of itself any moral mechanism - heck, any mechanism at all - for opposing Muslim extremism. But that doesn't make Fish's critique of classical liberalism any less devastating. Andrew's only recourse is to revert to the discredited axioms of modernist leftism. Unless he's subconsciously falling back on Christian morality.
But there's only two ways of doing that. One would be to admit to being just as much of a fundamentalist as the Islamists. This isn't entirely unappealing, but it does leave one open to charges of fiat. The other option is to out-Nietzsche Nietzsche and realize that in a system of morality based entirely upon power and its exertion, the only omnipotent being in the room gets to call the shots.
Which is where I'm at. God gets to do and say what he likes. It's a good gig, being God, you know? Thus, as Christians we can base our morality firmly and unshakably on God and his Word without having to worry about a thing.
This also lets us condemn the Islamists on all fronts.
Works for me.
More or less agreed... but what Sullivan astutely notes, I think, is the attraction of people gripped by Nietzschean thinking towards strongly held beliefs merely for the sake of possessing strongly held beliefs.
Posted by: rob at February 13, 2006 01:24 PM"Andrew's only recourse is to revert to the discredited axioms of modernist leftism."
Since when is liberty a discredited liberal axiom?
Okay, then, devil's advocate time: since when is liberty a self-justifying good? The only way it can be is in the classical liberal Jeffersonian/Lockian sense, and this sense of the word buckles immediately under postmodern criticism as arbitrary and unnecessary. And you'll find that it is sorely in need of justification unless you want to say that liberty is in and of itself virtuous, which itself is in need of defense.
While I do believe that it is an incredibly effective tool for creating a prosperous and just society, I do not believe it to be a human right, in no small part because I do not believe in human rights.
Posted by: ryan at February 13, 2006 06:36 PMjust as a side note: if there isn't something 'like' an entitled right, how can countries intervene in course of matters like, say, genocide or the occasional blood-thirsty Hitler-type? I know in cases like Sudan and Rwanda no one really cared. But after the fact, everyone was appalled that it was going on. What kind of theory does fiat have on intervention on behalf of others?
Posted by: jCave at February 13, 2006 07:07 PMA secular postmodernist would not be able to come up with any non-fiat-based reason for intervening in either Sudan or Rwanda: neither place possesses any resource relevant to nor does either government's genocidal actions pose a threat to US interests.
It is possible that one might argue that genocide is uncivilized behavior and governments have an interest in promoting and enforcing civilized behavior and may do so by force even when no clear material or security interests are at stake. I would be sympathetic to this argument. But it is clearly fiat-based.
A Christian postmodernist could say that genocide is a crime against humanity and that any such government deserves to be deposed by any other government that can muster the political will to do so. This, as one might notice, assumes a particular definition of justice that is predicated upon a God-based morality.
But I would argue that aside from an aesthetic "ick" reaction to genocide, there is no rational reason for opposing it without making reference to God.
Posted by: ryan at February 13, 2006 10:41 PM