Everybody can clearly see that America is having a crisis.
And it seems to be a crisis about the very nature of law, and what it means to be law-abiding. As long as these police-violence videos keep coming out (and they will), the people will rapidly lose confidence in the basic soundness and validity of the system known as "law and government."
We're heading for a point where we'll have to discuss the very foundation of law, including what it's made of, how it's constructed, and where it comes from.
I would like to contribute to this discussion by offering up a primer on Natural Law.
***
Natural Law can best be described as the notion that law is preexisting, rather than "made" by humans.
There exists a set of principles for how people (or any sentient life) should conduct themselves in relation to other sentient life, and that these principles existed before sentient life developed, and that, as it developed, it inherited an already-existing system of morality.
People cannot make law; but what we can do is discover and describe what is already there.
Let's use an example of, say... murder. Here's how several different systems interpret it:
Monarchy: Murder is wrong because the king made a law saying so.
Republicanism: Murder is wrong because the people's elected representatives made a law saying so.
Democracy: Murder is wrong because the people have arrived at a consensus that it is so.
Natural Law: Murder is wrong because it just is, and any individual with a functioning brain can figure that out on his own.
All people are endowed with a built-in moral compass that tells them what is right and wrong. Some believe that there may be a tiny fraction of people (perhaps 1-2%) who, for some as-yet-enigmatic reason, are devoid of this, whom we call "sociopaths", but they are a tiny minority. The standard model of a human comes with the internal moral navigation system.
It's definitely possible to distract a person from accessing his navigation system, and to distort it through propaganda and social conditioning. But the system still remains, and if the person is able to quiet his mind and momentarily step outside of the conditioned part of it (such as perhaps through meditation), he can regain access to the system, and once again read what it says, and apply it to whatever situation its wisdom is needed for.
Law and morality are preexisting, intrinsic, and eternal. They are not made by humans, and thus cannot be unmade by us either.
Let's use another example: the utilization of psychoactive plants.
According to Natural Law, it is a crime to initiate violence against another person, except in defense. You can assault, batter, rob, and abduct a person, but only if he or she attacks you first, or is clearly about to, and such actions are necessary for restraining him or her so that he/she cannot continue to perpetrate violence.
But according to U.S. codes, it is a "crime" to use whatever plants a certain group of people in a particular building in a particular city have declared that it is a crime to use. And if they see you using one of the plants that they don't like, they've actually granted themselves authority to break the law against non-defensive violence, and initiate violence against a peaceful person.
Think about that. Believing in "legislation" is tantamount to saying that you can do anything you want, to anyone, and commit all manner of savagery, as long as you vote on it first.
Another example: abortion. Many folks have been led to believe that their attainment of majority consensus allows them to void the validity of the life of an unborn child. And if you follow that logic, then there is nothing stopping them from voiding the life of a born child - or the life of any person at all, for that matter. Nothing except consensus. If 51% of the country agrees to re-enslave black people, then that would presumably be ok, at least by the reasoning of democracy.
But according to Natural Law, slavery and non-defensive violence are wrong, wrong, wrong, and there is nothing anybody can do to change that - no matter how much voting takes place, no matter how well-ironed their neckties or well-pressed their uniforms.
In summary...
1. There is one set of rules.
2. It's for everybody.
3. It existed before the dawn of humanity.
4. No one is exempt from it.
5. No one can exempt another person from it.
6. No system of government can (legitimately) override it.
We can discuss the contents of the law later. But first, do we agree that it exists?
Now that we've had that little primer.... what do you think?
Do you agree that Natural Law exists?
And it seems to be a crisis about the very nature of law, and what it means to be law-abiding. As long as these police-violence videos keep coming out (and they will), the people will rapidly lose confidence in the basic soundness and validity of the system known as "law and government."
We're heading for a point where we'll have to discuss the very foundation of law, including what it's made of, how it's constructed, and where it comes from.
I would like to contribute to this discussion by offering up a primer on Natural Law.
***
Natural Law can best be described as the notion that law is preexisting, rather than "made" by humans.
There exists a set of principles for how people (or any sentient life) should conduct themselves in relation to other sentient life, and that these principles existed before sentient life developed, and that, as it developed, it inherited an already-existing system of morality.
People cannot make law; but what we can do is discover and describe what is already there.
Let's use an example of, say... murder. Here's how several different systems interpret it:
Monarchy: Murder is wrong because the king made a law saying so.
Republicanism: Murder is wrong because the people's elected representatives made a law saying so.
Democracy: Murder is wrong because the people have arrived at a consensus that it is so.
Natural Law: Murder is wrong because it just is, and any individual with a functioning brain can figure that out on his own.
All people are endowed with a built-in moral compass that tells them what is right and wrong. Some believe that there may be a tiny fraction of people (perhaps 1-2%) who, for some as-yet-enigmatic reason, are devoid of this, whom we call "sociopaths", but they are a tiny minority. The standard model of a human comes with the internal moral navigation system.
It's definitely possible to distract a person from accessing his navigation system, and to distort it through propaganda and social conditioning. But the system still remains, and if the person is able to quiet his mind and momentarily step outside of the conditioned part of it (such as perhaps through meditation), he can regain access to the system, and once again read what it says, and apply it to whatever situation its wisdom is needed for.
Law and morality are preexisting, intrinsic, and eternal. They are not made by humans, and thus cannot be unmade by us either.
Let's use another example: the utilization of psychoactive plants.
According to Natural Law, it is a crime to initiate violence against another person, except in defense. You can assault, batter, rob, and abduct a person, but only if he or she attacks you first, or is clearly about to, and such actions are necessary for restraining him or her so that he/she cannot continue to perpetrate violence.
But according to U.S. codes, it is a "crime" to use whatever plants a certain group of people in a particular building in a particular city have declared that it is a crime to use. And if they see you using one of the plants that they don't like, they've actually granted themselves authority to break the law against non-defensive violence, and initiate violence against a peaceful person.
Think about that. Believing in "legislation" is tantamount to saying that you can do anything you want, to anyone, and commit all manner of savagery, as long as you vote on it first.
Another example: abortion. Many folks have been led to believe that their attainment of majority consensus allows them to void the validity of the life of an unborn child. And if you follow that logic, then there is nothing stopping them from voiding the life of a born child - or the life of any person at all, for that matter. Nothing except consensus. If 51% of the country agrees to re-enslave black people, then that would presumably be ok, at least by the reasoning of democracy.
But according to Natural Law, slavery and non-defensive violence are wrong, wrong, wrong, and there is nothing anybody can do to change that - no matter how much voting takes place, no matter how well-ironed their neckties or well-pressed their uniforms.
In summary...
1. There is one set of rules.
2. It's for everybody.
3. It existed before the dawn of humanity.
4. No one is exempt from it.
5. No one can exempt another person from it.
6. No system of government can (legitimately) override it.
We can discuss the contents of the law later. But first, do we agree that it exists?
Now that we've had that little primer.... what do you think?
Do you agree that Natural Law exists?