The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: There is moral 'law'

(See in situ)

In post: Who are you?
In reply to comment: One (see in situ)

There is moral 'law'

Though 'law' may make it easy to be confused. I would prefer to say simply, there is morality, or better yet, there is good and evil.

However it's hubris to claim we have the final or perfect understanding of good and evil. We do not, not human can, no human has the capacity.

This does not remove our obligation to understand it as best we can, so that we can be a force for good as best we can. (As it seems some people seem to feel an obligation to study also to be the best force for evil they can, but why some people do so is another topic)

I think it's failing to recognize that we do not have the capacity to perfectly understand morality that leads you astray. Because next you say without overarching moral law there would only be "personal experiences leading to moral preferences".

But this is exactly our reality. We both agree humans are inherently and inescapably flawed, for different reasons. But you don't follow through with the logic, though many Christians do, which is one reason I'm so respectful of Christianity.

So again: if we're inherently flawed then our understanding of morality must be imperfect. It doesn't matter (for this purpose) where it comes from, it matters that we somehow perceive it and choose to be moral. But there is a necessary and profound consequence to that imperfection, which is itself the beginning of understanding morality, which understanding is required to become more moral.

To say that we're imperfect and never can be perfect doesn't remove our responsibility to become better. To say that imperfection means we can never completely understand our physical or moral reality doesn't remove our responsibility to understand them better.

But our imperfection does mean that while you can have something like faith that there is a real moral universe, or I can deduce it from our physical reality, what we cannot ever do is have faith that our understanding is perfect.

In fact we know for a certainty that our understanding is definitely imperfect.

So when we see a mugging or a murder or a rape or a kidnapping in progress, we can know with some assurance that intervening is the right thing to do. In fact most of us feel an imperative to do so, which if denied makes us feel guilty. Science tells us much of this is built into us. The Bible also says much of this is given to us by our creator, and very explicitly so in Genesis.

There are many other situations of what I would call evil, that people do routinely accept, and this is where knowledge kicks in. I can often clarify many things in such a way that most good people see an issue in a better light which may help them become better.

But I never presume in these cases that my understanding is perfect, just that sometimes it's better than the person I'm talking to. Sometimes not.

The moral implication to this, and I think the key to all morality, is first accepting you don't know, and then deciding you want to know as much as you can, and then possibly most importantly, never being tricked into believing the bite from apple of knowledge of good and evil, was all of the truth. It was just a little truth, it was from a poison source, and you will never in all of mortal life fully digest even that one bite.

Ultimately we don't know and this basic fact means we must be very careful about insisting our knowledge is somehow better than the next guy, so much so that we would lift arms against him.

Lifting arms against our brothers is exactly what we do every time we walk into a voting booth. IMO democracy is an evil fruit from an evil seed, and cannot be other.

Many Christians in the liberty movement seem to understand this. They absolutely believe in good and evil, but they understand any good we would attempt to do with arms raised against our brothers is almost always the opposite of good, and even if well intentioned, leads to the place good intentions usually do.

The progressive Christians, whose first impulse is to use political force is however not my friend and are on the wrong path. To pay other men with guns to do something they are too cowardly to do themselves, and worse anonymously from the voting booth, can ultimately only have evil results.

If the powers of the government are derived from the people, the government can do no more than the people can. Whatever you think is wrong for others to do or not do, if you do not know enough, and with enough certainty, to do personally what you would send others to do in your name then you should immediately consider if the good you think to do will be made somehow better with the introduction of intimidation, slavery, violence, theft, or death.

You might say there is only one entity in universe that can be trusted with power.

I would say zero.

But I do hope we might agree that either way, no human can be so trusted, because we both agree humans are, and always will be in life, imperfect in all things, especially including their knowledge of morality.