The best speech I've ever heard.

[Golden Dragon]

This sort of discussion reminds me of the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

Something about that phrase rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it has become trite or cliche.

Yes, it is a bit like tolerating the evils because of the goods, but that's a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. I may be tolerating the extreme religious beliefs of my co-worker, but that doesn't mean I support him or believe in them in any way.

What's simplistic about tolerating the evils for the goods? As a Thomist, my view is strongly informed by Thomas's exposition of the Principle of Double Effect, where some (material) evils are tolerated because of a desire for a greater good. It is evil to maim a man, but if the choice is between amputation and death, you amputate. If a prince fears a riot in the city if he were to convict a criminal, he may let the criminal go unpunished (an evil) for the sake of the physical well-being of the city. (As an aside, I don't like the language of racial tolerance. There is nothing evil about being black.)
The Principle of Double Effect is not for the squeamish or the simple.

[Krensky]

Except that you've got it backwards.

Double effect allows for good acts that have evil consequences, not evil acts that have good consequences.

[ThunderMonkey]

I believe there's a ying-yang to everything. Inside evil, good can be found. Inside good, evil can be brought forth. There must be a balance between good and evil. Fate (and/or karma) has a way of keeping the playing field level.

[Golden Dragon]

Except that you've got it backwards.

Double effect allows for good acts that have evil consequences, not evil acts that have good consequences.

Not quite. It allows material evils for moral goods. The amputation of an arm of a gangrene patient is not an "evil consequence," but an actual material evil inflicted in the pursuit of a greater good.

The PDE (not a partial differential equation) is there to address those problems where regardless of what happens, a material evil occurs. The question becomes, may I inflict (or risk) a material evil for a "greater" good. May I maim a man if his life is at stake? May I defend my life at the risk of the life of my assailant? May I exonerate the guilty for fear of riots? In all three cases, a material evil is the means to the end.

If we need a digression on the distinction between material and moral goods (and material and moral evils) please let me know.

[Krensky]

That's not the Principle of Double Effect, that's Consequentialism.

The Principle of Double effect specifically rejects the theory that an intentional evil is acceptable to cause a good. The initial action must be an intentional good (or morally neutral) act that has a unintended (although not necessarily unforeseen) evil act that does not outweigh the intended or actual (depending on who's describing it the principle) effects of the good act.

As an aside, you're misusing the term material good. Philosophy and Economics use the same definition: an object that can be acquired that provides non-spiritual pleasure. The term properly belongs in a discussion of value theory, not moral philosophy. Your use of it is, if I remember correctly, found occasionally within cultural anthropology and theology for the use of distinguishing between internal and external consequences, but the distinction between them is not really germane to a discussion of the principle of double effect.
 

[VisualStatic]

The following is my opinion:

This sort of discussion reminds me of the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

Something about that phrase rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it has become trite or cliche.

I find that idea of that phrase being cliche or trite, offensive.  As a former member of the US Military, that quote is at the heart of the oath of office that I and every other military member took when joining or reenlisting.

I will uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

I'm pledging my life so you can pray, worship or believe wherever and whatever you want.

I'm pledging my life so you can say, think or have any opinion you like, regardless as to whether I agree or not.

I'm pledging my life for your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happeness.

That, to me, is not trite or cliche.

Although, I am no longer a member of the US military, I respect any person who currently or in the past as taken that oath.  We owe them our respect, gratitude and support.  Their sacrifice should never be forgotten or diminished.

The previous, again, is my opinion.

[OverNinja]

I agree with haughtyelf on that matter. I've taken my oath, and though it's for a different country the principle is the same.

That is my opinion, though I think most that have served their country will hold that opinion.

[Golden Dragon]

The following is my opinion:

This sort of discussion reminds me of the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

Something about that phrase rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it has become trite or cliche.

I find that idea of that phrase being cliche or trite, offensive.  As a former member of the US Military, that quote is at the heart of the oath of office that I and every other military member took when joining or reenlisting.

I will uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

I'm pledging my life so you can pray, worship or believe wherever and whatever you want.

I'm pledging my life so you can say, think or have any opinion you like, regardless as to whether I agree or not.

I'm pledging my life for your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happeness.

That, to me, is not trite or cliche.

Although, I am no longer a member of the US military, I respect any person who currently or in the past as taken that oath.  We owe them our respect, gratitude and support.  Their sacrifice should never be forgotten or diminished.

The previous, again, is my opinion.

I'm sorry that you found it offensive. It's that I've heard "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," in contexts that were less than sincere has left a bad taste in my mouth. Luckily, it's not a quote from your oath, and for that I'm thankful.

I did not mean to diminish the oath you've listed above.

[VisualStatic]

I thank you for your reply.  Hopefully, you did not take what I said personally, it wasn't not meant as a personal attack and I can see if that statement had been said in instances where is wasn't as thoughtful, how it could come off as being less then sincere.

[Golden Dragon]

Could a mod snip the posts by Krensky and me concerning the principle of double effect and put them in a separate thread. They are a tangent here, but I do want to continue that discussion.

[Gentry]

Never said it was "the most important speech in a generation"... one of the few. I'm hard pressed to find another at that level... and I'm a bit of a political junkie.

For my money, I'll direct you here:  http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/14789305/detail.html

[ThunderMonkey]

I may be completely biased, but Romney seemed to make his speech more about pandering and excuses instead rather than a clarification of what he believes.

He condems "radical Islam" in one graph and makes a plea for religious freedom in another. I didn't see him condem any of the "radical" religious right. I believe that extremists on both ends do no favors to those that tend to be more in the middle.

[Crafty_Alex]

A little more On Topic:

Interesting to see someone actually listening to one of Wright's speeches, than the edited stuff they see on YouTube (sadly a phenomenon we see in the press more and more nowadays):

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

May help understand the context around the comments.

[Nepenthe]

I agree with haughtyelf on that matter. I've taken my oath, and though it's for a different country the principle is the same.

That is my opinion, though I think most that have served their country will hold that opinion.

Add a Judge's oath to that one, and you got some serious weight on Your Eternal Soul(tm)...

[VisualStatic]

I agree with haughtyelf on that matter. I've taken my oath, and though it's for a different country the principle is the same.

That is my opinion, though I think most that have served their country will hold that opinion.

Add a Judge's oath to that one, and you got some serious weight on Your Eternal Soul(tm)...

Unfortunately, that line, not exact but similar,  is in many office oaths for politicians at the US federal level.  I wonder if we could get that them on that, a breach of oath.