tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post6358011274913512505..comments2023-08-10T05:32:21.163-04:00Comments on An Examined Life: Some Notes on Explanations and InferenceVitae Scrutatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-66307825541224394762009-02-25T12:26:00.000-05:002009-02-25T12:26:00.000-05:00Dr. Carson:Thanks very much for your patience, you...Dr. Carson:<BR/><BR/>Thanks very much for your patience, your time and, most especially, your well thought-out elaboration on the subject inquiry.<BR/><BR/>That really clarified things for me.<BR/><BR/>God bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-81625945973890787952009-02-24T22:06:00.000-05:002009-02-24T22:06:00.000-05:00This is something that I have already explained at...This is something that I have already explained at some length in the original post, but perhaps a quick overview is in order.<BR/><BR/>The two assertions are compatible because the meaning and reference of the term "usurious" depends upon empirically testable historical conditions. Lending at interest is only usurious if the interest rate represents an unfair burden on the debtor. Prior to the advent of a capital economy, any interest rate could reasonably be regarded as "unfair", in the sense of placing an insurmountable burden on the debtor. This was true because, in a feudal economy, there were very few, if indeed there were any, means by which a borrower could hope to make some sort of a return on money he had borrowed. This is because money was not itself the kind of commodity that it has become. Since the advent of capital economies in the 16th-17th centuries, the function of money itself in the economy has substantially changed. The sin of usury, by contrast, is no different than it has ever been: just as in feudal times, so too today there is still such a thing as a sinfully large rate of interest, and it is still possible to make loans that are usurious: all you have to do is charge a rate of interest that nobody could reasonably hope to pay. This is something that I believe the mob is rather famous for. However, there are certain rates of interest that do not represent anything like that kind of unfair burden, at least in certain kinds of cases, hence it is not by definition usurious to lend money at interest.<BR/><BR/>The point of the development is precisely this: historical conditions, including the intentions of lenders and economic viability of debtors, determines the conditions under which a particular rate of interest is to be regarded as "usurious". Prior to the advent of a capital economy in the 16th-17th centuries, any lending at interest could be counted as usurious (sinful); but after the advent of a capital economy not all lending at interest was usurious because someone who borrowed money could treat his loan as a commodity and invest it for a return. In short, the burden on the debtor is not at all what it had been under a feudal economy. The sin of usury is not defined as a sin of charging a person a fee for giving him something (namely, money), it is rather a sin of placing an undue economic burden on another person. What has changed is not the sin of usury, but the economic conditions under which money is loaned.<BR/><BR/>So what appears to be a contradiction turns out to be merely an appearance. Hence the content of the teaching did not change (there is now, and always has been, such a thing as sinful, usurious lending [namely, charging an unfair fee for a loan], and the Church opposes it), but historical conditions have arisen under which the application of that content will be affected (if, in a capital economy, you lend money to someone who is going to be able to invest that money and earn more, then it is not, in fact, unfair to charge a certain level of interest).<BR/><BR/>This does not strike me as a particularly difficult problem (indeed, I have never understood why the Church's critics have so often chosen this particular example to work with, when the explanation is so obvious). Indeed, it is true of many other sorts of cases. Take, for example, something as straightforward as the commandment that we are not to kill. Scripture itself makes it clear that historical conditions determine the application of this commandment, since Scripture itself commands the Hebrews to kill certain people who have committed certain crimes, and the Church has always accepted the legitimacy of killing in defense of the common good when serving in a duly appointed military capacity. Do we say that the teaching on "not killing" has changed, or that it changes from time to time based on what seems expedient? Not at all. We say that the meaning of the commandment depends upon certain empirically observable conditions, including intent, the nature of the threat, etc.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14247942.post-1965943923066135162009-02-24T20:48:00.000-05:002009-02-24T20:48:00.000-05:00Dr. Carson,I would greatly appreciate your assista...Dr. Carson,<BR/><BR/>I would greatly appreciate your assistance in understanding how the following is somehow actually mutually compatible with one another (i.e., both statements are true):<BR/><BR/>"(all lending at interest is usurious; some lending at interest is not usurious)"<BR/><BR/>If ALL lending at interest is usurious, then how can SOME lending at interest be said to NOT be usurious?<BR/><BR/>This seems to contradict the very Law of Contradictories (i.e., two contradictories are never true or false together) where:<BR/><BR/>A-form: All (Every) Lending at Interest is Usurious<BR/><BR/>O-form: Some Lending at Interest is NOT Usurious<BR/><BR/>I would be most appreciative of your kind guidance in this. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com