-2 votes

Why I Will Not Accept Rights-Based Justifications For Liberty

It is not necessary to claim that everyone has the "rights" for liberty to be achieved. It is actually counter productive since the arguments cannot be maintained under scrutiny. When put to the proof, rights turn out to have little or no actual meaning and have no binding force on others except insofar as they are rhetorically powerful. To the extent it is used as symbol and rhetoric, I support the rights language, but never in an intellectual discussion.

To say someone has the right to self defense, for example, is almost a meaningless truism with no moral content. To say its a right, what does that even mean? If they are unable to do so, their right means nothing. If they are able to do so, their right means nothing. To say its a right is just a meaningless, private opinion on the morality of the act.

I would say, everyone has the ability to try to act in self defense, and it usually is in their interests; they have the free will to make a decision to resist slavery at risk to their own persons if they so choose. It may be in their best interests, and so, morally right from their perspective.

But it is not necessary to assume or try to prove that it is also morally obligatory on all others to accept its rightness, or to accept as binding someone else's interests or moral claims. I have no natural obligation to act in the interests of others. Nothing can compel me to do so but force if I choose not to. No one can claim I am morally bound to limit my freedom in order to protect the interests of other living things, men or animals. This obligation can only spring from an implicit or explicit social arrangement where I exchange my "good behavior" for protection from the "bad behavior" of others. In a state of nature or anarchy, its every man for himself.

To claim a moral assertion, or an "ought," is binding on others is a dangerous slope to enter down. It could be argued that everyone has the moral right to not starve to death. If this is true, then it is a direct path to justifying socialism. If you establish the precedent that someone must self-limit their range of activities on moral grounds, to not harm others, it isn't a far stretch from there to require everyone feed the poor. Neither moral claim, the socialist or the non-aggressionist, is provable or unprovable.

It would be very hard for me to argue against a starving man's moral claim of a right to to feed himself, even by stealing. How could I seriously say he's wrong to steal rather than die? That does not mean I am bound to feed him or to see myself as in the wrong to protect my property, it just means we can both be in the right to act in our interests.

I could never call someone immoral for stealing to feed their hungry children, but I am not morally wrong to defend my property either. Morality is subjective and rooted in the different interests of different living beings, in nature as well as among people. People are also animals, a part of nature, and in nature, interests rule morality and power determines rights for all creatures. Animal rights end where animal power ends, and with humans the only added factor is social agreements and mutual or collective action to secure the legal enforcement of political arrangements, which animals cannot do. There is no magical x factor that intrudes to make humans have rights where other living animals do not.

It is not required that there be a universal binding morality for everyone, in order for political rights to be achieved. It is not necessary for every conflict to have a right and wrong party for political rights to be enforced by a body of individuals.

I reject the moral universalism inherent in natural rights claims, and the impossible requirement of proving such a moral system. I feel that by rooting out these faulty arguments, I actually strengthen the libertarian position by making its foundation real and sound, and defensible. If I have any one thing that defines me it is an intellectual conscience that does not allow me to use false and logically fallacious arguments to fool myself, or others, in order justify something I want to believe in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

political rights are the

political rights are the rights recognized by society and are therefore legal. any other rights you claim would have no reality unless you could force everyone to accept them, but this would only work for chuck norris.

Your rejection

...of transcendent principles (i.e. God, or natural law) strips reality of meaning. Everything becomes a pointless absurdity, sucked into the black hole of nihilism.

Line up Hitler's brain next to Jefferson's brain next to Pol Pot's brain next to Da Vinci's brain -- in the view which rejects transcendent Person, Love, etc., these brains are all just different rearrangements of material and energy, different tweaks of grey matter. None is really 'better' or 'worse' than any of the others, and the things they result in -- the Holocaust, the Declaration, the Killing Fields, the Mona Lisa -- are all just rearrangements of other stuff that are also ultimately neither 'better' or 'worse' than the others. In the end, it all goes away; and there is no transcendent Love, Person or anything that is left to give meaning, or purpose, or Story to it all.

I reject that bleak, depressing nothingness. I embrace Person, Love as transcendent, eternal reality, from which Liberty and other natural rights emanate.

At this point, you might try to cast any view which upholds God as reality as ultimately authoritarian, and therefore incompatible with Liberty. I see it the other way around -- without God, we are all damned to the 'hell' of nothingness, pointlessness, absurdity. Through the overarching reality of Love and Person, everything is infused with meaning, and everything can expand in Liberty as it grows to embrace that reality in a deeper and deeper sense throughout eternity.

I believe every person will be reconciled to this reality, through the Love of God, in one way or another -- even those who now deny it. I believe Love is the highest natural law, and that it will transform all in time. Liberty without true Love as its foundation is dead -- an empty shell which will collapse in on itself when external pressures are applied.

this is the sappiest, most

this is the sappiest, most meaningless sentimental rot i have ever read. but thank you for your contribution. it is important for people to see that for many, perhaps most people, their "truth" is something that makes them feel good, or happy, or safe. usually the same people who need to reference hitler, pol pot, etc., to argue for their baseless beliefs.

I'll ignore...

...the condescending insults, which leaves little else of substance in your reply to comment on.

You haven't effectively countered (or even tried to counter) my core claim -- that if there is no Person, Love, etc. as transcendent reality then in the end all of the things you are discussing are meaningless. There is no there there to judge between 'better' or 'worse', 'Liberty' or 'tyranny' in the long run -- it's all an absurdity if the non-personal is ultimate.

I also find it interesting that you would mock and scorn what you call 'sentiment' -- perhaps that is a telling sign that your own view fails to resonate with the emotional, spiritual side of humanity. Where in your nihilistic vision of reality is there any inspiration from ultimate meaning towards Love, Liberty, etc. -- there is none. It's all bleak, emotionless, depressing wasteland. And in the end what does it matter if you're correct? If you're correct, none of us will be around to care. What's the point?

reality is only depressing to

reality is only depressing to you. i find it fascinating and interesting and full of happiness and mystery. i don't need fantasy to soften or lighten it for me.

This view of reality...

...that you believe in -- where does it come from? How did you arrive at it? And it's not depressing to contemplate no meaning? To in the end have none of all of this matter a hill of beans? Why all the fuss and bother about it if that's the case?

i am alive. while that

i am alive. while that continues to be the case i'm going to take an interest in understanding the world as it really is. i'm weird like that.

You know...

you don't have to continue with the pretense that I don't share an interest in understanding the world as it really is. I've just come to different conclusions than you so far.

I'm curious, though -- which of the two basic views of reality would you prefer to be true? Would you rather that Love and Person be transcendent or not?

If you are right, neither of us will be around to know it with 100% certainty. It will all be -- poof -- gone. Nothingness.

If I am right, you will be around to know it; and to discover that Love is indeed greatest -- not just a temporary illusion.

part of the problem is i

part of the problem is i don't know what you mean when you say love and person are transcendent. but i'm going to stop being rude and arguing, because i like you more with each post. you're pretty awesome!

Is the...

...'awesome' term missing some of that new purple font? :D

By Person and Love being transcendent, I mean that the material world around us is secondary to it, or derived from it, and for it. Because Person, Mind, Reason, Love is the eternal reality, the 'I AM THAT I AM', everything is an extension from it, full of purpose and meaning in relation to it. I'm just beginning to really delve into Plato, but his views of the Forms and everything being on a journey of becoming, really resonates with this idea. (Tempted to consider myself a Christian Platonist at this point.)

What the opposing view does is flip that on its head, making some seemingly non-personal aspect of the material universe or multiverse or quantum mechanical system the fundamental reality, from which everything else finds existence. This means that what we experience as 'person', 'love', 'reason', etc. is fundamentally just a chain reaction of meaningless deterministic or random events within a non-personal system, an illusion which vanishes like a cloud that looked like a sailing ship but really wasn't. It's sad to contemplate -- kind of like the scene in 'Blade Runner' where the replicant who has run up against his programmed lifespan laments, "All those moments, lost in time...like tears...in the rain. Time to die." All the illusions of personhood will be swept away in the cosmic pointlessness, the yawning gulf of obliteration.

This latter view of the world really takes the wind out of my sails -- makes Life and Liberty and my very self absurd. I honestly would despair if I thought this was true.

The former view, which I thankfully do find more convincing for various reasons (such as the very existence of human Reason and Knowing and Inference as opposed to just a non-personal chain of deterministic chemical events) brings joy to every fiber of my being. It inspires me to embrace our ventures in Liberty as eternal in value -- because we are dealing with Real person, Real lives, Real right and wrong, all of which are eternal themselves. Everything truly matters.

I truly, sincerely and humbly

I truly, sincerely and humbly admit that I have no idea.

No conception of reality really truly makes sense to me.

I chalk that up to the likelihood that I am a deeply limited primate whos brain has no possible ability to perceive the actual reality, and could never make sense of the great mysteries of life and existence.

I do not know if god, or a moral order of the world, or anything exists, or just void and chaos that somehow some way produced thinking creatures.

I do not know how far our thinking reflects reality and to what boundary it can not go beyond in understanding.

I don't know if life emerged from material processes rooted in the mysteries of the universe, or if the mighty Lord designed all things.

I don't know whether I am an animal with a limited brain and the selfish impulses of all life, or if I am a fallen man born to original sin.

I don't know and never expect to know any of these things.

But where I am confident I can know, and can apply logic, I do so with ruthless indifference to how it makes me feel, how it impacts my interests,, or how it ingratiates me or alienates me from others.

It is perhaps a personal masochism or just a bizarre hobby.

But I don't see other hobbies as being much better.

It is certainly a pastime, hardly a leisure activity, and not much of a recreation.

Maybe just an obsession.

If your discoveries and beliefs, and intuition make you happy and richer, I would not discourage you.

Thanks for that...

...thoughtful reply! Sorry if I got off on too deep a tangent there for the purposes of your thread. :) These questions of natural law and rights inevitably dance around these metaphysical questions, though, it seems.

Regardless of our different views, I am glad that we find some intersection between them at this crossroads of seeking out truth and Liberty.

me too my friend.

me too my friend.

I agree...

I think what the author of this was really struggling with is morality behind the God given rights and having an intellectual way of defending those since I am assuming he does not believe in God (I could be wrong

Reminds me of what CS Lewis spoke about how inherent in the idea of Freedom is the presupposition of an authority above man; without that it truly is survival of the fittest; the founding fathers obviously were aware of this IMO, from the way the constitution is worded

i don't know whether god

i don't know whether god exists or not, but if i did, i still wouldn't know his opinions. no more than you do.

UPB

There is such a thing as morality, and it's not subjective. Ideas can be proven or disproven through using reason - this is philosophy.

Morality is another word for "universally preferential behavior". Stealing is bad because if stealing were "good" then there would be no reason to steal, as you will never keep the thing you stole. It's universally preferable to call theft "immoral".

Stephan Molyneux does a good job of arguing the points for morality and universally preferential behavior. If you're interested, check out freedomainradio.com

Molyneux’s UPB fails—and

Molyneux’s UPB fails—and fails badly. UPB is riddled with philosophical and conceptual problems that only those with little training, or familiarity, with philosophy think it is good.

I recommend David Gordon’s two critiques of UPB as a start:

https://mises.org/daily/6101/The-Molyneux-Problem

https://mises.org/daily/6105/Mr-Molyneux-Responds

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Where Stefbot fails, Triple H

Where Stefbot fails, Triple H succeeds, IMO.

Agree/disagree?

It seems to suffer from some

It seems to suffer from some of the same problems as Molyneux’s theory. It basically tries to shut down debate without actually advancing a positive case for it. It does this by presupposing one’s premises, or, in other words, it is circular.

Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan have put some objections to it. You may want to check it out: http://www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy19.html

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

hey evan how you been?

hey evan how you been?

i like Hoppe a lot on his democracy analysis, immigration analysis. he's a formidable intellectual and i think the property and freedom society is top notch. but i have found myself reading hoppe and disagreeing at times.

Molyneux's rebuttal was

Molyneux's rebuttal was complete. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35935.aspx

Arguments against UPB are riddled with philosophical and conceptual problems that only those with little training, or familiarity with philosophy think they are good.

So I’m assuming you didn’t

So I’m assuming you didn’t peak at the second post, since it replied to Mr. Molyneux’s rebuttal. Anyways, I would like to say a few things about UPB. My first one is the complete arrogance of the theory, or, rather, the arrogance of Mr. Molyneux. It is constructed in such a way that any attempt to raise objections is thereby twisted as support for it—that is, the person arguing against UPB is said to presuppose precisely what one is denying in the act of denying it—that is, it is Molyneux using sleight of hand hocus pocus, shifting the burden of proof on you, and basically claiming victory without every making a positive statement for UPB.

Second, UPB does not justify why such and such an action is moral or immoral; rather, at best, it is a tool of consistency. But inconsistency between one’s actions and one’s belief does not prove or disprove a theory.

For example, above, you state:

Stealing is bad because if stealing were ‘good’ then there would be no reason to steal, as you will never keep the thing you stole. It's universally preferable to call theft ‘immoral’.

You want to state that "theft is immoral" as a universal statement, or, the converse, that “theft is moral” cannot be universalized. Sure it can! All one has to do is construct a theory—like UPB!—and have has one of its tenets, “theft is moral,” as a universal absolute. If the person setting forth this proposition does not like being stolen from, or does not in engage in theft every time, would not prove that their philosophy is internally inconsistent or that it has some error in its content; at best, it shows a contradiction between one’s theory and one’s action. But showing one to be a hypocrite, at best, says nothing about the content of the proposition! It tells no one whether it is good or bad, whether one ought-to or ought-not to do something. In effect, UPB rules out any context or any non-absolute rule. As long as you absolutely apply the rule, any rule works. But validation of an ethical theory depends on the content, rather than the application, of the theory.

Next, UPB bumps into the is/ought dichotomy. Ethics, or moral claims, deal with prescriptive statements (oughts and ought-nots). But UPB refers to descriptive elements in the world, and from this tries to derive moral statements. But moral statements are not questions of “what is” but “what ought to be.”

And finally, for a full take down by an astute philosopher, I recommend this piece by Danny Shahar.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Everything makes sense Bill, but

your arguments strength is mostly dependent upon the following statement being true:
"In a state of nature or anarchy, its every man for himself."

Those who believe that "anarchy" or "natural law" will bring about a better world, begin with the axiom that man is inherently altruistic. Many on your side of the argument start with the axiom that people are inherently selfish (for himself).

Unfortunately there is no definitive evidence that either axiom is correct and when people jump to a side, they do so with belief and not proof. None try to defend their axiom, they just say 'just look around, it is abundantly clear! How can you not see this simple truth?' It is not clear to those who hold the middle path, and it is seen as falsehood to those who have a different axiom.

As Alan Watt used to say, we have prickly people and gooey people in the world. The prickly people cannot minister to the gooey people and visa versa, as it just causes misunderstanding and tension. You will never get some to agree with you because their axiom forbids it. All the same, I agree that you are indeed strengthening the liberty movement by virtue of the discussion. We just all need a little understanding (big lesson that I'm still learning) or the two sides of the liberty movement (the prickles and goo balls) could become enemies.


http://youtu.be/XXi_ldNRNtM

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

its pretty clear that both

its pretty clear that both selfish and altruistic impulses drive human nature. my premise has nothing to do with selfishness excluding all altruism. my premise is merely that individuals compete for their interests in a world of finite resources. many are happy to resort to violence to do so. in the absence of restraints, many more would be willing to do so.

whether or not people exerciser altruism toward their families, toward an ingroup, or even toward strangers has no bearing on my premise.

if you think the premise is untrue, say so. i think you're on pretty shaky ground, but that will at least get to the kernel of the matter.

.

Your argument: Moral laws aren't physical laws and are therefore moot.

"It is not required that there be a universal binding morality for everyone, in order for political rights to be achieved."

Yes, it is required. Private property.. That's it. You own yourself as no one can have a greater claim on you. That's the foundation. From that principle others logically follow. Such as the right to own your own labor and the ability to enter into contracts. If you want to debate some distal logical paradox that arises, okay. But I haven't found any logical contradiction that somehow negates (or even calls into question) these principles.

(What's a 'political right' btw?)

You've also conflated the definition of anarchy when you compare it to 'nature'. Anarchy is simply the absence of a group with the ability to claim a monopoly on the use of force. There are different approaches to anarchy.

Nature is, well.. "the universe, with all its phenomena."

Maybe I missed something. But I don't see an argument at all.

your original premise has no

your original premise has no basis in reality. ownership means the ability to dispose or exercise control over a thing. if persons actually had such control, by nature, society need not exist. if no one could take that control (ownership) away, we would have no need to interact with each other, let alone discuss anything.

in the absence of law, ownership can only mean the power to control something. if your control over yourself could not be seized, politics need not exist. no one could coerce anyone else.

since there is in reality no guarantee to self ownership, or self defense, or anything - even basic needs like food and shelter - we bind with others to obtain those needs and defend those things.

since people can and do combine together to exercise force against others, larger political groupings come together to safeguard the endangered interests of isolated individuals. grouping together becomes necessary.

once security is established by order, by law, by a system of justice and protection of individual persons and property, then from that point on, liberty can be increased to its maximum level consistent with the continuance of order.

none of this depends on anything related to self ownership. the term ownership only has meaning in a legal context. outside of a legal context, ownership can mean only the power to control something - superior force. within a legal context, ownership means being able to appeal to justice to have ones claim of ownership enforced by OTHERS those are the only two forms of "ownership" in existence.

god, nature and moral assertions about what should be never enter the picture, and if they have any effect it is only their effect in persuading people to behave in accordance with your claims. the same can be true of any moral claim, including socialism. neither can be proved or disproved.

your original premise has no existence in reality, any more than "all men deserve an equal share of nature's bounty." it is likewise just a moral assertion. but both could be effective if enough people are forced or persuaded to believe. but neither would be any more true.

.

moral assertions should never enter the picture.. and yet you speak of raising institutions and "law"? You plan on somehow erecting legislation and abstaining from taking a moral position? lol, elaborate.

it would be nice if you could explain how me saying

I own myself as no other man can have a greater claim upon my life.

is ANYWHERE CLOSE to..

all men deserve an equal share of nature's bounty.

again, just because a moral axiom MAY be violated due to a persons inability to defend his own property, does not somehow negate his ownership of said property.

Rights Are Santa Claus

I [also]question the usefulness of the idea that people have natural, god-given, inalienable human rights. It's been given a fair trial over the last several centuries, and it doesn't work.

As philosophers have noted, "rights" are a moral concept, without existence outside the human mind. In the context of a particular moral code, one may properly speak of doing what is morally right as "a moral right," with the understanding that such a "right" imposes no obligation on anyone besides those who subscribe to that identical moral code. But that is not the sense in which men commonly speak of "their rights." They mean something grander, something that is universally possessed by all men, by virtue of -- what? God's grace, man's nature as a rational being, Human Nature, the legacy of the Founding Fathers, or pure wishful thinking? Take your pick -- they are all equally worthless.

Possession of a "right" has never protected men from the aggression of others, particularly the aggression of those who style themselves "governments". What has actually done the job but never received the credit is the moral choice of civilized people not to initiate the use of force against one another, and to defend themselves (and each other) from the human predators among us. When the idea of individual responsibility for the defense of life, liberty and property falls into disfavor, your society will not be free much longer. The men who step forward to "protect your rights" for you will soon become your masters. And so it has come to pass, time and again.

Libertarians hold to the idea of natural rights because they crave the behavioral consequences: they wish everyone would behave as though such things as "rights" actually exist, and must be respected. True enough: if everyone shares a fantasy, things will run smoothly until the first child stands up to declare that the emperor has no clothes. (Or until the first guy like Dick Cheney stands up to declare that he does indeed have the "right" to put people in cages and torture them to death.)

The problem with such fantasies is that they prevent us from becoming aware of exactly what forces actually work to make people free or unfree. As long as you believe in Santa Claus, you will not understand that it is your parents who love you and want to give you presents. As long as you believe in the literal truth of the Christian Bible, you will never be able to accept the fact of evolution, or even the fact that the earth is not flat. And as long as you believe in "rights," you will never realize that individual choices (i.e., to resist coercion) are the force that wins and preserves the freedoms which men claim to be their “Natural Rights.”

"Rights" do not exist. The power of choice does. Men are free to act with respect for the individual liberties of others, or to act without respect. There is no such force as a natural right that will reward virtuous action, or punish evil. There is only one force in human affairs. That is the force of individual will. Freedom is a choice, not a right.

The worst feature of the fable of "rights" is the belief that we are entitled to receive them -- by God or Nature or Society, or by great-grampa's victory on the battlefield -- some force outside oneself. This leads people to believe that it is the duty of that outside force to protect and enforce one's rights. Wait for God to protect you from a mugger, and you'll have quite a wait. Likewise, Mother Nature, or Society, or the Constitution. Your "right" not to be mugged is of no use to you, in the face of any random thug who doesn't believe in such nonsense. (Which makes him smarter than you.) So if you prefer not to be mugged, it is not useful to count on your "rights;" better to examine your choices. Your choice to carry a gun or to avoid dark alleys will be of infinitely more use to you than your "right" not to be mugged.

In a way, it is enormously liberating to give up the idea of "rights." You don't need to give up your own moral vision of good and evil, right and wrong. You just have to realize that it is individuals standing up for their own moral choices who are the only defense of liberty. You don't have to wait for someone else to deliver whatever "right" you believe you are entitled to enjoy. Make the choice to defend those freedoms you value. And if someone tries to stomp on your freedom, you will have to choose what to do about it. You can accept the stomping, and lose your freedom, by default. Or you can fight back. If you do so impulsively, stupidly, ineffectively, you can still lose and get stomped. But with planning, ingenuity and perseverance, you can win. Especially if you have help from like-minded friends and allies. Maybe you won't, but it's a chance, and you decide if it's a chance worth fighting for. Your own choices are the only control you have over your life; they are also the source of any security or liberty you will achieve.

Fighting the gangsters (the worst of whom call themselves "governments") who want to rob or enslave you is dangerous. They will be perfectly happy to imprison, torture and murder you to make sure no one else dares to question their authority. Unfortunately, safety isn't always an option. Life isn't safe. Bad, dangerous people exist, and some of them mean to take what you have, by threat or by force. You WILL have to deal with them. Resisting them is dangerous, but giving them everything they want, your property and your liberty, is also dangerous. Do you think they will take LESS from you next year, once you submit to them? Won't the tribute they collect from you now strengthen them in the future, and weaken you? It sure would be nice if someone "out there" would just take care of the problem for you -- except every time people set up an organization (i.e., a government) to protect themselves from bad guys, all the SMART bad guys join the organization, worm their way to the top, and take up looting where the last bad guys left off.

The whole idea of natural rights, like religion, has the advantage of being a ready-made code of conduct for people who haven't figured things out for themselves. Like religion, it works to restrain some amount of human savagery. Just as some amount of juvenile savagery is restrained by the belief that Santa Claus will leave lumps of coal in the Christmas stockings of bad boys and girls. But what will restrain us when we grow up and see through the myths with which our parents, priests and politicians have tried to con us?

What are we to put in place of belief in rights? The ethics of non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade. And a belief in choice. You may not have "rights," but you do have all the abilities and qualities of an individual human being -- which is all anyone else has. That means you have the ability to make choices and to direct your own action. You can choose what moral code you prefer to live by, and you can do so to the best of your ability. You can choose to respect other people's equal liberty to work to achieve their own values. You can choose to associate yourself with other people who share your important values, and you may enter into agreements with them to mutually defend and support one another against aggressors. And if you do this well, you will have all the same security that the notion of "rights" is supposed to give you, only with clear understanding of what your security actually depends upon. A child who understands that his gifts come from his parents is better equipped to deal with the real world than one who continues to believe in Santa Claus.

Postscript: I originally wrote this piece as a letter to G. Edward Griffin (who agreed with me), and have since published it on Strike the Root, here.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Without a transcendent...

..natural law, there is no reliable measuring stick, common to humanity, of right and wrong, and therefore any attempt to differentiate between, say, the Nazis and, say, the Founding Fathers as being truly 'better' or 'worse' or 'right' or 'wrong' is meaningless in the ultimate sense. If you instead start with Person, Love, the Creator as the fundamental reality, which defines natural law, and from which all things in the cosmos emanate, it's a whole different story -- everything is infused with meaning; everything is judged by a common standard, a common, personal Source.

There is no "ultimate sense."

The words "right" and "wrong," or "good" and "evil," have meaning only within the context of a moral system. Every conscious being has the power (and the necessity) to choose his own moral standard. That's why there are so many religions, and non-religious philosophical systems. As long as individuals have the power of choice, there will never -- can never -- be one common, universal morality. WHATEVER each individual chooses as his personal moral code is what supplies him with his personal sense of meaning and purpose. Morality only exists inside individual brains; there is no NEED for it to be common or universal, except in the minds of compulsive collectivists, and of people so intellectually insecure as to feel threatened whenever someone else believes something different.

I don't understand what you mean by "Person, Love and Creator," but please don't explain; I'm not at all interested in your personal religion. No offense intended; just saving you from wasting your time.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...