Justice Scalia: Advice In An Age Of Passionate Idealism

Indignance has become a virtue in and of itself that allows all manner of accusations against Democracies--especially Israel--including random accusations about international law without even bothering to understand that there are actual meanings to such terms.

As one commenter to a post of mine wrote:

As for the term "disproportionate force", I don't know the legal definition, but I understand it in the context of how other people/organizations were using it. [emphasis added]

Which is to say he does not understand the legal definition--and admits it--but that doesn't matter.


Apparently, all you need is passion.

That is the kind of thinking that was addressed back in June, when Justice Scalia had this Advice For A New Grad:

And indeed, to thine ownself be true, depending upon who you think you are. It’s a belief that seems particularly to beset modern society, that believing deeply in something, and following that belief, is the most important thing a person could do. Get out there and picket, or boycott, or electioneer, or whatever. I am here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are, than what you are committed to. If I had to choose, I would always take the less dynamic, indeed even the lazy person who knows what’s right, than the zealot in the cause of error. He may move slower, but he’s headed in the right direction.

...In short, it is your responsibility, men and women of the class of 2010, not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones. That is perhaps the hardest part of being a good human being: Good intentions are not enough. Being a good person begins with being a wise person. Then, when you follow your conscience, will you be headed in the right direction.

The idea that it is the passionate commitment that takes precedence is not new--we saw plenty of it during the 1960's. Allan Bloom, in The Closing Of The American Mind, wrote about that mentality, and how it differs from the traditional view of morality:

There is a perennial and unobtrusive view that morality consists in such things as telling the truth, paying one's debts, respecting one's parents and doing no voluntary harm to anyone. Those are all thing easy to say and hard to do; they not attract much attention, and win little honor in the world.This morality always requires sacrifice....This was not the morality that came into vogue in the sixties, which was an altogether more histrionic version of moral conduct, the kind that characterizes heroes in extreme situations...It was not, of course, the complexity of such cases that was attractive but their brilliance, the noble pose. Somehow it was never the everyday business of obeying the law that was interesting; more so was breaking it in the name of the higher law...Conscience...made a great comeback, as the all-purpose ungrounded ground of moral determination, sufficient at its slightest rumbling to discredit all other obligations or royalties.

So now we find people who break actual international law in support of what they think should be the law, never actually getting around to finding out what the actual facts are or what the law actually says about them.

And in the end, they end up supporting terrorist groups who don't recognize international law to begin with..

Technorati Tag: Justice Scalia.