What makes government different?

[GEddie]

The traditional position (and that of the Church for that matter) is that the basic unit of the State is the human family – not the individuals that constitute the numerous families in that State. This is why the State’s primary purpose for existing is its promoting of the flourishing of the human family. This is what I said in a previous post. I would be happy to justify this claim if needed.

Your view is definitely the traditional liberal (I don’t mean political liberal) postion born out of the so-called enlightenment. I think that this is, for many people, the dominant view of the State in contemporary Western Society. This is because this is what we are all taught in our schools. I also think that this is why people have a hard time understanding the reasoned arguments against such things as “gay marriage” and licit use of the death penalty all the way down to the immorality of contraceptives. The ramifications of a State being constituted by its individuals are quite dramatic and troubling.

OK. I don’t agree with you; but that is fine.

To me the idea of “the State” as made up of families doesn’t make much sense. Families do not vote, or hold public office (except in the few remaining nobilities), nor fight in wars, nor get hauled into court (except in divorce issues). Individuals perform all of “the state’s” life-support functions.

And if the “State” is primarily about families, what about those persons (increasingly numerous) who for whatever reason do not procreate a family? Are they to be considered expendable?

And families, like everything else non-physical about human life, have changed over time.

BTW FWIW: I am not a political liberal, per se. I probably agree with you on gay marriage, and disagree on the death penalty. OK. Disagreements when civil make life more fun.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[fakename]

From the catholic encyclopedia it approves of Francisco Suarez’s view of the state:“the natural happiness of the perfect, or self-sufficient, human community, and the happiness of individuals as they are members of such a community, that they may live therein peaceably and justly, with a sufficiency of goods for the preservation and comfort of their bodily life, and with so much moral rectitude as is necessary for this external peace and happiness” (in article “civil authority”). So in this definition obviously the state cares for individuals in their collective aspect (that is not dealing I presume with matters like education etc. which is a family job). So because the state ensures individual happiness, it also indirectly ensures family happiness -I don’t think the two views are logically incompatible.

An interesting thing that connects w/my interest is that a man is not hung for his own good but for the common good. By definition the state handles the common good, so the state alone can kill people for the common good.

 

[mosher]

OK. I don’t agree with you; but that is fine.

To me the idea of “the State” as made up of families doesn’t make much sense. Families do not vote, or hold public office (except in the few remaining nobilities), nor fight in wars, nor get hauled into court (except in divorce issues). Individuals perform all of “the state’s” life-support functions.

And if the “State” is primarily about families, what about those persons (increasingly numerous) who for whatever reason do not procreate a family? Are they to be considered expendable?

And families, like everything else non-physical about human life, have changed over time.

BTW FWIW: I am not a political liberal, per se. I probably agree with you on gay marriage, and disagree on the death penalty. OK. Disagreements when civil make life more fun.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

Let me try to draw out the distinction that is being made. Notice you are equating the purpose of the state with its functions. In a sense you are making government and end in itself. However, I’m trying to provide its reason for existence – its end. What I am saying is that government is not an end in itself. Rather, its terminus is the flourishing of the human family.

It is not, yet that you disagree what what I have said. Rather, you are speaking about a completely different aspect of the state.

 

[mosher]

From the catholic encyclopedia it approves of Francisco Suarez’s view of the state:“the natural happiness of the perfect, or self-sufficient, human community, and the happiness of individuals as they are members of such a community, that they may live therein peaceably and justly, with a sufficiency of goods for the preservation and comfort of their bodily life, and with so much moral rectitude as is necessary for this external peace and happiness” (in article “civil authority”). So in this definition obviously the state cares for individuals in their collective aspect (that is not dealing I presume with matters like education etc. which is a family job). So because the state ensures individual happiness, it also indirectly ensures family happiness -I don’t think the two views are logically incompatible.

An interesting thing that connects w/my interest is that a man is not hung for his own good but for the common good. By definition the state handles the common good, so the state alone can kill people for the common good.

No, they are not incompatible. In some ways its a matter of emphasis. Also, remember that the CE is trying to address Catholic concerns about the modern liberal state. For many years Church officials and theologians, and others argued that the liberal state was an adoration. What you find in the CE is in many ways a reaction against the positions of say, the Ultra Montaigne.

 

[fakename]

No, they are not incompatible. In some ways its a matter of emphasis. Also, remember that the CE is trying to address Catholic concerns about the modern liberal state. For many years Church officials and theologians, and others argued that the liberal state was an adoration. What you find in the CE is in many ways a reaction against the positions of say, the Ultra Montaigne.

That is to say, the Church wanted to say that the individual had rights but couldn’t usurp the family?

 

[mosher]

That is to say, the Church wanted to say that the individual had rights but couldn’t usurp the family?

Correction: In my above post the word ‘adoration’ should be ‘abomination’.

Well it depends on what you mean by rights. If you mean the modern use of the term ‘rights’ then no. Rights in the modern sense is something granted by some competent legislator. For Aquinas, and likewise, the Church the term signified not what is conferred arbitrarily by a law giver but what one possess by nature. So, yes, it wanted to protect this latter sense of rights. But, it does depend on the author of the CE author. Remember that the CE is not a magisterial document. It is a helpful compilation of the thought of various individuals brought together for the purpose of providing a summary on key topics. At times you can hear an axe grinding while you read certain entries.

But in any case, the Church prior to Vatican II was always hesitant to use the language of rights. Rather, as you still see in documents, the Church prefers to speak about the dignity of the human person and the obligation to preserve that dignity and help the person flourish as a human person.

Also, I think opposing the individual and the family is to create a false dichotomy. All things being equal the flourishing of one will always provide for the flourishing of the other. The contrary would also be true.

The aspect that I am trying to draw out is: What is all the work of the government for? Is it simply for the flourishing of the individual qua individual or is it for the flourishing of the human family? Practically what I mean by this is that the role of the state is to provide the circumstances by which the human family can thrive through the licit means at its disposal.