Review: Cathleen Kaveny's book 'Ethics at the Edges of Law'

Review: Cathleen Kaveny's book 'Ethics at the Edges of Law,' Part 1
The Cultural Bias (Grid/Group) Theory of Mary Douglass and Aaron Wildavsky, and the work within that theory in the area of religion by Elaine Pagels, would also be useful in this analysis.

There is more than one cultural perspective to look at Christian ethics, American law and their intersection. The four basic cultures are authority (rules over individuals), liberty (individuals over rules), hierarchy (rules over groups) and equality (groups over rules). The law must balance them all. Reviewing this volume in terms of the cultural biases of both the theologians and the law would be a useful exercise.

Authoritarian ethics are taught, not reasoned, with a single and unchangeable truth. Libertarians teach a right of conscience in both formation and application of ethics. Egalitarians see truth as pastoral and Church as the People of God. Hierarchist morality is divined by experts and is legalistic.

American law has a capitalist bias, which is part of an overall authoritarian bias. Even the most liberal judge and certainly all Supreme Court Justices, rule on economic questions within the capitalistic bias. Thus will continue until this bias is laid bare.

Over the last 65 years, the authoritarian and hierarchist social bias has given way to an egalitarian bias favoring individual rights. Shifting from authority to rights is implicit in the question of who makes these decisions.

State governance has an authoritarian bias and majoritarian bias. The national arena is able to hold local authority in check. There is no going back, especially when these biases are understood.  Questions between group rights and individual rights are still in flux, especially if questions of past and current authoritarianism are ignored. Ignoring bias is where conflict becomes impossible to breach.

Part 2

Hauerwas and Barth's Covenant is with the group. Covenants are an agreement rather than an imposition, which make them egalitarian. Calling them commandments is hierarchist unless we believe Jesus is both God an friend, as he said in his last discourse. Which approach to follow is up to us and our belief about the Church. Such questions also give background to look at Stout and MacIntyre  What it cannot be is authoritarian because it is about all of us.

Legal and moral theories which rescue a victim from authoritarian are the bread and butter of egalitarianism.  This gives us perspective in Outka and Farley. 

The law is about authority and process. It is something that advocates from both sides do not understand, which is why they are not taken seriously by legal analysts while allowing them to fundraise in good conscience. Only the advocates know how much they know about the nature of law, which is the difference between ignorance and fraud. In ethics, this is called invincible v. vincible ignorance. It is up to those who know to make this clear, especially in dealing with the USCCB Office of Pro-Life Activities.

Ramsey seems to be speaking to and for authoritarians in the Church. Where you see moral decisions based on fear, it means an Ogre is watching - either Ecclesial or Divine. The God we believe in is a reflection of ourselves. 

The law as pedagogy depends on what is being protected; authority or individuals. The law can be a blunt tool until this question is connected. Identity is the same kind of tool. It can be an egalitarian feature to affirm the group against authority. When it becomes hierarchist by asserting rules, it may or not be bad. 

Life in the days of SARS-CoVid-2, a egalitarian sense that we are all in this together enables hierarchy to help us with danger. It is when hierarchies put authority over truth that things begin to go wrong. 

Do we criminalize suicide because we can use this to require mental healthcare or because we fear the punishment of God? Again, it becomes a question of theology, which has more to do with how bishops and theologians see their authority than God (whom they hide behind). Culture lays this bare. Consumerism concerns are a consideration of equality. Sometimes, however, equality demands individual autonomy in the face of authority by clergy and doctors.

Consumerism is the safety valve of capitalists to protect the system (both personal authoritarians or professionalist hierarchs). It benefits individual consumers and workers as a class. In modern times, it is the capitalist bulwark against unionization and overproduction.

Divorce and remarriage raise the same concerns about authority. Are rules against remarriage designed to protect divorce as harm or do they continue the hurt of a harmful marriage? Kaspar, et al,  are close to the right question and its answer, but do not get there. 

Kaveny comes close to finding the right questions, but would benefit from using the tools Mary Douglass offers.