Taming Augustine’s Monstrosity: Aquinas’s Notion of Use in the Struggle for Moral Growth

In Book VI of his Confessions, Saint Augustine offers a detailed description of one of the most famous cases of weakness of will in the history of philosophy. Augustine characterizes his experience as a monstrous situation in which he both wills and does not will moral growth, but he is at odds to explain this phenomenon. In this paper, I argue that Aquinas’s action theory offers important resources for explaining Augustine’s monstrosity. On Aquinas’s schema, human acts are composed of various operations of intellect and will, and thus are subject to disintegration. In order to capture the gap in human action between making choices to pursue particular goals and translating those choices into behavior, Aquinas distinguishes between two operations of will that he calls choice and use. I apply hisdistinction between choice and use to Augustine’s case, arguing that Augustine’s moral weakness is a result of will’s failure to use its choices. The central thesis of this paper is that Augustine’s monstrosity is a bona fide case of weakness of will that is best explained as a failure in use at the level of will

Transformative Education in a Broken World: Feminist and Jesuit Pedagogy on the Importance of Context

This chapter relates the concept of positionality from feminist theory and pedagogy to the Ignatian paradigm to show how its focus on the individual, at the expense of the structural, fails to acknowledge the unequal power relationships that disadvantage students from minority groups. Focusing on the positionality of gay and lesbian students in the author\u27s classroom at a Jesuit college, it explores how becoming attentive to our own positions with respect to our students allows us better to examine how relationships of domination and subordination between members of oppressed and privileged groups in larger social and ecclesial contexts are re-created at the micro-level in the classroom

Optimal redesign study of the harm wing

The purpose of this project was to investigate the use of optimization techniques to improve the flutter margins of the HARM AGM-88A wing. The missile has four cruciform wings, located near mid-fuselage, that are actuated in pairs symmetrically and antisymmetrically to provide pitch, yaw, and roll control. The wings have a solid stainless steel forward section and a stainless steel crushed-honeycomb aft section. The wing restraint stiffness is dependent upon wing pitch amplitude and varies from a low value near neutral pitch attitude to a much higher value at off-neutral pitch attitudes, where aerodynamic loads lock out any free play in the control system. The most critical condition for flutter is the low-stiffness condition in which the wings are moved symmetrically. Although a tendency toward limit-cycle flutter is controlled in the current design by controller logic, wing redesign to improve this situation is attractive because it can be accomplished as a retrofit. In view of the exploratory nature of the study, it was decided to apply the optimization to a wing-only model, validated by comparison with results obtained by Texas Instruments (TI). Any wing designs that looked promising were to be evaluated at TI with more complicated models, including body modes. The optimization work was performed by McIntosh Structural Dynamics, Inc. (MSD) under a contract from TI

Naturalizing Moral Justification: Rethinking the Method of Moral Epistemology

The companion piece to this article, “Situating Moral Justification,” challenges the idea that moral epistemology\u27s mission is to establish a single, all‐purpose reasoning strategy for moral justification because no reasoning practice can be expected to deliver authoritative moral conclusions in all social contexts. The present article argues that rethinking the mission of moral epistemology requires rethinking its method as well. Philosophers cannot learn which reasoning practices are suitable to use in particular contexts exclusively by exploring logical relations among concepts. Instead, in order to understand which reasoning practices are capable of justifying moral claims in different types of contexts, we need to study empirically the relationships between reasoning practices and the contexts in which they are used. The article proposes that philosophers investigate case studies of real‐world moral disputes in which people lack shared cultural assumptions and/or are unequal in social power. It motivates and explains the proposed case study method and illustrates the philosophical value of this method through a case study

Situating Moral Justification: Rethinking the Mission of Moral Epistemology

This is the first of two companion articles drawn from a larger project, provisionally entitled Undisciplining Moral Epistemology. The overall goal is to understand how moral claims may be rationally justified in a world characterized by cultural diversity and social inequality. To show why a new approach to moral justification is needed, it is argued that several currently influential philosophical accounts of moral justification lend themselves to rationalizing the moral claims of those with more social power. The present article explains how discourse ethics is flawed just in this way. The article begins by identifying several conditions of adequacy for assessing reasoning practices designed to achieve moral justification and shows that, when used in contexts of cultural diversity and social inequality, discourse ethics fails these conditions. It goes on to argue that the failure of discourse ethics is rooted in its reliance on a broader conception of moral epistemology that is invidiously idealized. It concludes by pointing to the need to rethink both the mission and the method of moral epistemology

Alpha, Omega, and the Letters in Between: LGBTQI Conservative Christians Undoing Gender

Sociologists studying gender have debated West and Zimmerman’s premise that “doing gender is unavoidable,” seeking to ascertain whether people can “undo” or only “redo” gender. While sociologists have been correct to focus on the interactional accomplishment of gender, they have neglected one of Garfinkel’s key insights about interaction: that people hold each other accountable to particular narratives. Neglecting the narrative aspect of doing—and undoing—gender impedes our ability to recognize processes of social change. Based on a qualitative study, we show how the movement for LGBTQI acceptance within U.S. conservative Protestant churches works to make gender not “omnirelevant” by challenging conservative “complementarity” narratives that posit two complementary, opposite sexes as a commandment preceding the Ten Commandments in time and importance. We explore this movement’s ambivalent relationship with homonormativity, highlight three ways this movement resists projecting binary gender narratives into scripture, and examine how some in this movement see the pursuit of social justice as a Christian mandate. The efforts of LGBTQI conservative Christians exemplify how reshaping sex/gender/sexual narratives can create possibilities for undoing gender

Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry: State of the Science Review

Focuses on the importance of biological diversity in forest management on medium to large tracts of land in the U.S., including elements of diversity of ecosystems, the diversity between species, and genetic diversity in species