According to Michael C. Braswell in Justice, Crime, and Ethics, wholesight includes both the heart and the head in one’s decision making. It results in working together for the common good.
In Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis writes that
Without the aid of trained emotions, the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite skeptical about ethics but bred to believe that “a gentleman does not cheat,” than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharper.
In battle, it is not syllogisms that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of the bombardment. The crudest sentimentalism … about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use. We were told it all long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the ‘spirited element.”
The head rules the belly through the chest – the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment – these are the indispensable liaison officers between the cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.
Braswell’s definition of wholesight then is at least one-third short. He proposes that the process of decision-making should be an internal narrative between the heart and the head. He includes in “heart” both the sentiments of the heart and the appetites of the belly. This leaves the appetites of the belly an advantage. First, they are hidden. They are not openly examined during the decision-making process. Next, they are not governed by an adequate force. The head may oppose the appetites, but the appetites are persistent and they have the ally of the body. The head will often yield to the appetites and ultimately justify or otherwise defend them. The morbidly obese person trying to lose weight, for example, will often reason that one more cheeseburger is reasonable.
Wholesight is including the heart, head, and belly in one’s decision-making process.
For the definition of wholesight to be whole, it must be that one includes the heart, the head, and the belly in one’s decision-making.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
arrogant /ˈerəɡənt/ having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or ability
controversy /ˈkäntrəˌvərsē/ disagreement
debate /dəˈbāt/ argue about a subject
honorable /ˈänərəb(ə)l/ bringing or worth high respect and great esteem
proof /pro͞of/ evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
Rule 1st:
Agree on the subject in controversy and the definitions of the terms used during the debate.
There should never be any misunderstanding about the subject in controversy. If misunderstanding arises, the debate will likely be less respectful and take a much longer time to resolve – this is because both parties will be on different pages, thinking they are on the same page.1
Rule 2nd:
Each party should assume that the other parties in the debate stand on equal footing with respect to the subject in controversy. Assume that all parties possess equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth and that it is possible, therefore, that each party, even themselves, may be in the wrong, and their adversaries in the right.
In the heat of controversy, people often forget how often they have been wrong in the past. Consider that there have been major developments in almost every subject that revealed that long-held beliefs were error. Holding onto those beliefs results in presumptions, confidence, and arrogant language; all of which obstruct the discovery of truth.
Rule 3rd:
All expressions not directly related to the subject in controversy should be strictly avoided
Debate one subject in controversy at a time. Expressions that contribute nothing to the proof or the question; or jump from one subject to another; or impassioned expressions are other subjects not directly related to the subject in controversy.
Rule 4th:
Avoid commenting on the personal character of an adversary.
Good people can do bad and bad people can do good. Personal character comments are not only useless with respect to the subject in controversy but can produce real evil… They indicate in the person who uses them a mind hostile to the truth; for they prevent even solid arguments from receiving the attention to which they are justly entitled.
Rule 5th:
No one has a right to accuse their adversary of hidden motives.
Arguments are to be answered, whether the person who offers them is sincere or not; especially as their insincerity, if real, could not be ascertained. To inquire into their motives, then, is useless. To accuse them of indirect motives is … wounding.
Rule 6th:
The results of any debate are not to be awarded to the person who maintains it unless they expressly own them.
If an absurd consequence is fairly deductible from any proof, it is rightly concluded that the proof itself is false; but it is not rightly concluded that the person who advances it, supports the absurd consequence. The charitable presumption, in such a case, would be that the person had never made the deduction. Assume that if the opponent had considered this result they would not have argued for it in the first place.2
Rule 7th:
As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary with false proofs, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, petty or unnecessary objections, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.
Neighbor, can we live with these rules?
I was originally introduced to these rules by Prof. Gerald Jones. The original (below) was discovered in the Encyclopedia of English Grammar: Designed For the Use of Schools, Academies and Private Learners by William Hall and printed by Scott & Bascom, Columbus, OH (1850).
Hedge acknowledged that because human knowledge is limited and that known and newly discovered knowledge may be “contemplated by different minds” through “different points if view” controversy is a tool to test knowledge. The risk of controversy is that it is “oftentimes conducted with such intemperate and misguided zeal, as to inflame animosities, by which the comfort and harmony of society are impaired.” Hedge’s 1850 writing is just as relevant today.
I would join Mr. Hedge in the position, however, that even with those societal risks, the value of properly conducted controversy is immeasurably good. I would lift it to another level — it is a national moral that makes the United States great. The structure of a three-branch government, yes. Sovereignty divided between the federal and state governments, yes. Powers reserved to the citizenry, yes. But the resulting tension resolved through controversy, civil discourse, it is a national moral.
It is a beautiful thing to encounter modern students, often classically educated, who can take a position and deploy rhetoric and authority to artfully, and honorably, defend it. The student and the observer benefits from the encounter.
It is an ugly thing to encounter disruption disguised as controversy. It is evil to deploy those same rhetorical skills to dehumanize or reduce people. It is evil to twist authority to win for the sole sake of victory rather than what is right or good. So, “it is incumbent on all who engage in [controversy], from whatever motives, to observe rigorously those laws and principles by which [evil] may be avoided and [good] secured. The following rules, sometimes called canons of controversy, have been highly approved by writers of learning and discernment:”3
Hedge’s Rules of Honorable Controversy (Original)
The terms, in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.
If this is not done, the dispute is liable to be, in a great degree, verbal. Arguments will be misapplied, and the controversy protracted, because the parties engaged in it have different apprehensions of the question.
The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right.
In the heat of controversy, men are apt to forget the numberless sources of error, which exist in every controverted subject, especially of theology and metaphysics. Hence arise presumptions, confidence, and arrogant language; all which obstruct the discovery of truth.
All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided.
All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof or the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions…
Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged….
Personal reflections are not only destitute of effect, in respect to the question in discussion, but they are productive of real evil… They indicate in him, who uses them, a mind hostile to the truth; for they prevent even solid arguments from receiving the attention to which they are justly entitled.
No one has aright to accuse his adversary of indirect motive.
Arguments are to be answered, whether he, who offers them, be sincere or not; especially as his want of sincerity, if real, could not be ascertained. To inquire into his motives, then, is useless. To ascribe indirect ones to him is … hurtful.
The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.
If an absurd consequence be fairly deductible from any doctrine, it is rightly concluded that the doctrine itself is false; but it is not rightly concluded that he who advances it, supports the absurd consequence. The charitable presumption, in such a case, would be, that he had never made the deduction; and that, if he had made it, he would have abandoned the original doctrine.
As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
Navigating a democratic republic is complex for Christians. Consider St. Paul’s instruction concerning government
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13: 1-7 NASB
Romans 13: 1-7 NASB
This instruction would be simple (although not necessarily easy) to follow under the authority of a king or dictator. Whatever the King commanded, the Christian would be subject to unless it contradicted a command from God. In a democracy or republic, where the citizens themselves participate in authority, participation in the government becomes complex.
St. Paul would have been writing this around 57 AD when Rome was established as a republic. The members of the senate, which governed and advised, was aristocratic and not elected. There was a strong divide between the wealthy class and the poor class. The wealthy class controlled most of the power and the poor class dissented and eventually earned the power of the veto. By 57 AD, the Roman was contending with a power struggle with emperors.
This form of government compared to the form of government in the United States does not give clear guidance to Christians living under a democratic republic such as in the United States.
Assuming that Christians have a duty to vote, how do they pick a candidate?
Here are the reasons why I plan to write-in Richard Stearns in 2020 for president of the United States:
I don’t want to throw away my vote.
Stearns was the president of World Vision United States for 20 years and therefore has the experience to run an international organization focused on the Christian way.
Prior to World Vision, Stearns was the chief executive officer of successful for-profit companies.
Stearns earned an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Stearns has experience dealing with the media.
Stearns is the husband of one wife and the father of five children.
Stearns has committed much of his adult life advocating and providing for the poor. Matthew 25
Stearns has demonstrated integrity by aligning what he does with what he says.
In his book, The Hole in Our Gospel, Stearns lays out the need for organized action to address national or global challenges.
Stearns has never been accused of much less convicted of de-humanizing others.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
Prowess is mastery. For the chef, it may mean sharpening their knife every time it is used. For the attorney, it may mean improving the inflection in their voice so that their argument is more readily heard. For the parent, it may mean changing how they teach something so that their child can learn it better.
Probity is the quality of having strong moral principles like honesty and decency.
Both can be concentrated in a person or a profession. Fatherly prowess. Fatherly probity. Legal prowess. Legal probity.
Great people join mastery coupled with strong moral principles. Prowess with probity.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
Today, at least in the United States, there is a prevailing perception that decisions are weighed out by consulting the head and the heart. The thinking and the feeling.
But many confuse feelings for appetites. Appetites make my heart beat fast, my breathing shallow. Appetites make me perspire. What they are really saying is that decisions are weighed out by consulting the head and the gut. The gut, rather than the heart, is where appetites reside.
If you consider decisionmaking to be a conversation between the head and the gut, the heart is actually left out of the conversation (the decisionmaking process) alltogether.
Affections, a type of love, reside in the heart. Affections are distinct from cravings, lusts, and hunger — all of which are appetites.
Personal decisions are made by consulting at least the head (I think …), the gut (I feel …), and the heart (I love …).
C.S. Lewis observed the heart is where affections and sentiments reside. I think one thing. I feel another. I do what I have an affection for, what I love.
How then do I prioritize what I have an affection for, what I love?
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
The political genius of the founders of the United States is that they juxtaposed two competing concepts in their minds at one time. One concept is that base human nature can be observed and it should be woven into the structure of government rather than rejected. The other concept is that it is possible to design a structure of government that is somewhat utopian – where people have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There may be a form of government that better addresses those two competing concepts than a democratic republic but history has not yet revealed it.
Even so, democracy is an oppressive form of government by definition. There is always a majority that oppresses a minority. That is why the founders ultimately enumerated certain rights. The majority is quite capable of fending for itself. Certain rights are protected so that the minority can equitably fend for itself. These rights empower the minority in its opposition to the majority, especially where the majority is coercive. Consider the power of free speech, free assembly, and arms. If there is a national morality, it can be witnessed in the debate between the majority and the minority.
Morality is holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct
Built into the design is an assumption that the relationship between the majority and minority would not just be governed by the Constitution or even law itself but by moral people. Read and hear what they said:
George Washington – The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.
John Adams – Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
John Jay – No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts…
Samual Adams – … good morals are the only solid foundation …
Alexander Hamilton – When morality falters the Pandora’s box of corruption, crime, and decay set in to be followed by the demise of the nation.
And we have to let go of the myth that someone is not a moral leader because they did something immoral. There are those who would set George Washington’s contribution to zero because he was a slaveholder. Those who would set Martin Luther King, Jr.’s contribution to zero because he was unfaithful to his wife. Moral leadership is based on the totality of the person.
And the totality evidences a person who privileges empowerment over de-humanization; encourages the loud, messy moral debate between the majority and the minority, privileges truth over doublespeak, and eats only after everyone else has been fed.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
