RE: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the future- Christian economics)

Hi Bernie,

You write:
"For example- wouldn't they say it is immoral to be pro-choice? In the same way, would they say it is immoral to ban offshore drilling? Killing babies could be a moral issue, but drilling or not is not a moral issue. Don't we all agree on that? Same with taxes- no tax system is immoral (they are just reasonable, equitable, stupid, etc.). For example, there is no moral superiority of a flat tax over a progressive tax or vice-versa, etc."

On the contrary Bernie, I don't agree with you here. Both off-shore drilling and tax policies are moral issues, just as much as abortion is. Off-shore drilling becomes a moral issue the minute we ask, "is this consistent with our command from God to be good stewards of His creation?" Also it is moral when we consider the question of "how will this impact the communities in which off-shore drilling impacts? Is it beneficial? Is it fair?" Likewise, for taxes, it is a moral issue when you ask "which tax policy best protects the "least of these", the poor, the widow, and the orphan?" or "is it fair to the rich to tax them at a higher rate?" In fact, I tend to the think that most questions, particularly those relating to public policy, have a moral dimension and thus, can be thought of as moral issues. Questions which involve life or death (such as abortion) merely draw out and highlight the issue more starkly, since fundamentally, there's no reversing a
 decision involving death/killing (well, there's the resurrection, but I'm speaking from an earthly perspective here...). Nevertheless, the morality contained within the other questions is just as real, and just as important, perhaps more important in some ways. And should this really surprise us? God's will for us, God's idea of what is right and what is wrong, are not just confined to questions such as abortion, but they pervade every aspect of life, and therefore (in my view), if we really wish to honor Him, we will seek out and properly weigh what is moral, in every question of significance--whether that's abortion, off-shore drilling, or taxes.

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus for the future- Christian economics)
> To:
> Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 11:15 PM
> Rich said:
> "During the campaign season I got a flyer from FotF
> concerning the Colorado senatorial race. "Family"
> issues included lowering taxes and offshore oil
> drilling!"
>
> But isn't it obvious that Focus on the Family is saying
> that it is their position of best advice, but it is not a
> moral issue?
>
> For example- wouldn't they say it is immoral to be
> pro-choice? In the same way, would they say it is immoral
> to ban offshore drilling? Killing babies could be a moral
> issue, but drilling or not is not a moral issue. Don't
> we all agree on that? Same with taxes- no tax system is
> immoral (they are just reasonable, equitable, stupid, etc.).
> For example, there is no moral superiority of a flat tax
> over a progressive tax or vice-versa, etc.
>
> If you subscribe to ACLJ, you'll also get updates (I
> used to) to support the Logan show (the son of Jay Sekulow).
> Just because they send out these others things doesn't
> mean they are moral issues.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> - - - - - -
> - From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 10:36 AM
> To: Blinne Rich; David Opderbeck
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] The ASA and the Soft Sciences (ASA focus
> for the future- Christian economics)
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>
> My claim is that economics is amoral. That is why
> "Focus on the Family," for example, doesn't
> harp on the issue, as they do for stem cell research and
> abortion.
>
>
>
> But they do. When they argue about global warming it's
> because of their belief that the market shouldn't be
> regulated. See also this piece by Chuck Colson arguing the
> markets should not be regulated whilst railing against
> "relativism".
>
> During the campaign season I got a flyer from FotF
> concerning the Colorado senatorial race. "Family"
> issues included lowering taxes and offshore oil drilling!
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:29 AM,
> dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Sigh. By mentioning "regulation" you presuppose a
> certain framework drawn from neoclassical economics. I might
> suggest the core issues relate to subsidiarity and virtues
> such as prudence and then we'd be talking Catholic
> social treaching. Btw adam smith was writing "moral
> philosophy" not "economics".
>
> Exactly. My discussion with respect to regulation should be
> in the context of being an application of deeper moral
> principles such as mentioned by David above. Other
> principles include fighting oppression and the proper
> relationship between the rich and the poor.
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 6 22:17:52 2009