"quasi-insurrectionary violence"?

[at marie a. failinger]

Presumably this is why we talk about issues--or should.  However, if the
views of virtuous people are not relevant to the conclusion of an issue,
does this mean that we should not be teaching the virtues (since the
theory of virtues education suggests that people will be moved to do the
right thing by habit, even when they cannot or do not figure it out.)

Marie A. Failinger                          Voice: (612) 641-2124
Professor of Law &                           Fax:   (612) 641-2236
Co-Editor, Journal of Law and Religion
Hamline University School of Law            E-mail:mfailing at seq.hamline.edu
1536 Hewitt Avenue                            OR mfailinger at gw.hamline.edu
Saint Paul, Minnesota USA 55104-1284

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Steven D. Jamar wrote:

> Micheal Stokes Paulson writes:
>
> > S. Jamar writes (in response to Rod Smith's question of when violence
> > might be justified against Hitler's regime) that Gandhi's answer was
> > "never."  Bonhoeffer's answer was "sometimes."  One of these great
> > men was right.  Neither answer is right simply because somebody of
> > great moral stature thought so.
>
>
> Of course this is correct.  The thoughts and actions of great people are,
> it seems to me, relevant, especially where there is no externally provable,
> strictly logical answer - i.e., the answer depends on one's selection of
> premises and values on which there is no universally accepted agreement.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Jamar
>