fashion law book

fashion law book

The Moral Law, Justice, and the evolution

We already mentioned the intelligence. Remember that article: How can we account for instinct? what divided into two categories, one that we call the instinct and the other a kind of ability to make decisions? We pooled the lower forms of animals in the first category and humans in the second. Other creatures, we have allowed, seem to work with a combination of instinct and "thinking.

But, of course, is actually more complicated than that. People have instincts too. The sexual impulse, love of a mother to her children, and a basic desire for survival are undeniable human instincts. Each of these features are shared in varying degrees with the animals. However, it seems we have something more than mere instinct.

In some way or another we have a moral sense of right and wrong. We feel like we know somethings are right and others are wrong. But then again, is what we consider good and bad just a subjective whim? Or you may be able to have a real honest-to-goodness objective standard for good behavior?

Some people say there is no fixed standard for decent behavior. This varies with time and from one culture to another. Different civilizations and different ages have had ideas very different about morality, they say. And they seem to have a point.

Customs and styles

Certainly, customs, styles and dress codes change over time. The last half century has seen a considerable change in the United States. In 1960, most women worked at home raising children. Usually, wore dresses, and dresses were of a conventional fixed length.

Men are expected to be the breadwinner. They wore their hair short and rarely had facial hair. Adult children addressed as "sir" or ma'am, "and generally are taught to be respectful of adults. Unless you know Rather, it was Mr., Ms. or Miss whatever her last name was. Times have changed!

Much of what passes for normal behavior nowadays have been socially unacceptable just thirty years ago. And it works both ways. Many of the things our ancestors did in the past, we would not be tolerated. A few hundred years ago, the death penalty was approved punishment for crimes ranging from theft to treason. The witches were hanged or burned. And slavery was largely considered an acceptable practice.

Moral principles

Obviously, some of the things our forefathers believed that the social taboos of today, and vice versa. But that's not the whole story. While some values can and do vary, some obviously not. In his book, Mere Christianity, CS Lewis points out that if one takes the trouble to compare the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, he was beaten with the amount have in common with each other and with us today.

Fair play, generosity, courage, loyalty, honesty and truthfulness have always been admired, while treason, murder, robbery, theft, rape and have always been condemned. The men have disagreed over who should be unselfish to - only his family, your country or worldwide.

But none of them has advocated putting yourself first. Some cultures have allowed more than one wife, but do not allow that a woman anything you want.

Golden Rule

The universal concept of all is also the most basic. We call it the golden rule. Most of the moral teachings of State in a negative way, like "Never do to others what not to do unto you." This fundamental rule of conduct appears in Judaism rabbinic, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.

We also see it in Greek and Roman ethical teachings and even in the proverbs in Old Norse. Jesus turned it around and put it in its positive form of two thousand years. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Is any other type of morality possible? Lewis challenges us, "... That what a totally different morality to say. Imagine a country where people were amazed to flee in battle, or when a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kind to him. It's like trying to imagine a country where two and two make five. "

The Moral Law

It seems that the rule of right and wrong, moral law, or whatever you call it, exists in two different levels. One of them is arbitrary. Fashion, convention, or flavor sets the tone for acceptable behavior at this level.

Then we see another moral standard beyond the trends of society. Here we have a nucleus permanent values. These fundamental guidelines for human consumption behavior seems to be deeply rooted in humanity and are not influenced by the circumstances of time and place.

Everyday conversation suggests that most of us believe in the heart of a real right and wrong. Take arguments, for example. Youth and old, educated and uneducated, often say things like "We promised." "Hey, broke in line ahead of us. That is not fair. "" Why do not you help me? I helped you when you need. "

CS Lewis tells us that such statements not only means that the attitude of colleagues from other not true for the speaker. There is something more involved. The complaint does appeal to a certain standard of conduct expected that the other person known.

And usually right. The other man rarely responds: "I do not care a damn about justice." No. He makes what he is doing not really wrong after all. He claims to have something special excuse that lets you off the hook for failing to fulfill its promise of this moment, or to break in line, or for not helping that on this occasion.

It seems as if both parties agree that there is actually a law or rule of fair play. Fighting means trying to show the other person wrong. What is the sense of trying to do that unless both sides agree on what is right and wrong. Like in basketball, to paraphrase example Lewis, there is no sense in saying that a player committed a foul unless there is agreement on the rules of basketball.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Thieves can not excuse himself by saying that he knew that stealing was a crime. The murderers can not escape the killing, saying he did not know that murder was wrong. The underlying idea is that all citizens must understand that theft and murder are wrong.

Can you imagine a lawyer in the request to dismiss the case against on his client, saying: "No judge, I do not think my client should be held responsible for the murder of his wife and six children. After all, the defendant has no a law degree. Why should we expect him to know all the finer points of the law? "

Moreover, the lawyers are trying to excuse their clients in writing "temporary insanity". Do not let the cat out of the bag? What we are saying is that for one reason or another, the defendant was a moment mentally unbalanced and did not know he was committing an act that we all know to be wrong. If the defendant healthy state at the time, have been acknowledged and defended the same rules for the conduct of the right than the rest of us sensible people do.

Appear stating that the criminal codes are based on certain moral truths. In fact, federal criminal laws and state would be meaningless unless there is a real rule of decent behavior that "healthy" know as well as criminal and we should have practiced.

Sometimes good and evil are so obvious, no one seriously questions it. After the Second World War, Germany was widely denounced by war crimes. But, as Lewis: "What did it say that the enemy was in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at the background, as well as we could and should be practiced?

Earlier we asked, is our idea of good and evil subjective caprice or an objective standard real for good behavior. It is obviously a time. Manners, styles, clothing, and views on any number of topics vary with time and location.

Once again the virtues such as courage, loyalty and honesty have always been praised. Similarly, the vices, such as treason, murder and theft have been universally condemned.

Civilizations throughout history have reflected these eternal values. And they are still with us today. Much of what we think, much of what we say, and much of what we would be absolutely absurd if there is no real moral standard of right and wrong.

Now, if we agree that there really is an objective criterion of good and evil, we can go to our next question. Namely, where does this rule come from? Some say that humanity invented the moral code, because civilization could not function without basic rules for getting along. Through education, who passed these rules to live well in one generation to the next.

Others say the same foreign source who designed the human body also produces the moral code to guide our conduct. The moral law was printed in humans the same as instinct. Who is right?

Before considering this question, consider first a totally different subject - math. Mathematics, As we know, is based on certain objective truths. Algebra, calculus and trigonometry, are all derived from sound mathematical principles that have existed long before that humanity discovered.

And if you somehow lose their knowledge of them again, the principles would still be there waiting for generations future to rediscover them. Therefore, we can say that mathematical truths are independent of any human knowledge of them.

Notice we say things as Pythagoras discovered the principles governing the right triangle. O Descartes discovered the principles behind the geometry. We do not say they "invented" the principles. They were already there. In the same way we talk about other people discover scientific facts.

In 1781, William Herschel discovered the planet Uranus in 1930. C. Tombaugh discovered Pluto. Uranus and Pluto have probably been around as our own planet. They still would be there, even if he had never heard of its existence.

With this in mind, we return to the moral law. The most reasonable assumption is that individuals through the centuries have discovered and rediscovered some fundamental truths of right and wrong. They did not invent them more of what Pythagoras invented the principles governing the right triangle or Uranus, William Herschel invented.

The moral law for decent behavior was already there. Men and women just looked in his own heart, your own conscience, and there they found a set of "duties". "Duties" such as: should I keep my promises, although I would rather not. I must say the truth, but makes me look like a fool. I end my assigned duty, though I'd rather do something else. I have to stay true to my spouse, even if I am attracted to another. I must be honest, although it would be easy to fool. Should I treat the other in the same way I like to be treated, although I think it is a fool.

Apparently, none of us makes up this moral code of the "duties". Sometimes it would be more convenient if only was leaving. But do not. Still in the press on us, like it or not.

One more thing, if man created the moral law itself, we would expect to find every society and every civilization to develop its own set of basic principles. Our idea is that they did not. Although they reached very different customs, conventions and customs, each civilization, past and present, found the same package of inconvenience "homework" to lead their lives. Is not it funny?

It resembles the external source is behind it. What moral law tells us about this strange? Obviously, not a creation-'em-and-run-Amuck dejar'em type of being. He is not neutral, hands off, passive creator. Instead we find a moral agent has loaded the dice trying to influence our thinking.

Freedom of choice

Basic instincts implanted in us both as he did to animals. But He gave us something other creatures apparently has not received. This moral agent scheduled a series of "homework" on us to guide our behavior. Obviously, he wants to keep our promises, tell the truth, our duty, be faithful, be honest and do unto others the same way we would have them do to us.

Notice however, much moral agent who wants to act a certain way, he does not force us. It allows free choice. We decided to obey the moral law, or we reject it.

Justice

Before we leave the moral law, I would draw your attention to a puzzle. Our natural desires in life seem to be satisfied in one way or another. We're thirsty, water quenches our thirst. We are hungry, food satisfies hunger. We want sex, your partner satisfies our desire. Our human nature appears to be in harmony with what life has to offer, so much so, it seems that way anyone expected.

Give them a desire, then give them a way to satisfy it, it seems the idea. It keeps us busy doing things that everyone who-do-we want to do. And all good works, to some extent. Then we found something that has absolutely out.

Deeply rooted in our consciousness, we have a penchant for justice or fair play. We are not neutral observers, we are beings moral. We want the good guys to win. We like happy endings. And we rejoice when good triumphs over evil.

About the only place that happens, however, is in movies, old movies about it. Real life is not so complacent. In fact, life often seems inherently unfair.

Consider: A baby born to wealth, another into poverty. One is the son of a family that loves him, another to a family that mistreated. One is aborted, the other is not. I need not tell, There is nothing just nothing like that.

Fortune seems to smile and frown about the others. We see the jinn, and see idiots, and women of great beauty, and women who are downright ugly, people with many talents, and people with no talent at all, and those who are healthy, and those who are ill or physically deformed. What is fair?

Take a step further. Some people are endowed with good looks, sound nerves, wit, charm and a pleasant personality. The popularity and admiration come fairly easy for them. It is a natural fit wherever they go. They have to work at it. It's a gift. They are the blessed. They are the winners of life.

At the other end of the totem, is a completely different story. There he meets the charming, boring, awkward, shy, deformed, lonely people or the passionate, sensual, unbalanced people. For another option itself, which rise in homes filled with hatred, petty jealousies, and the constant fights. Others are haunted by sexual perversion or beset by an inferiority complex. No matter how hard they try, they do not fit anywhere. They are the losers of life - unpleasant, unloved, and often subject to ridicule and jokes. These people are quick to say that "life is unfair". They are right.

Notice control, which we have mentioned so far are the traits and circumstances over which we have little or nothing. What about the things we have control? Do we find there fairness?

Some people work long and hard, day after day, dawn to dusk. Others do nothing that is not forced to do. They live with his seventy and so many years and die. Both memory soon fades. All they had, whether large or small, is left to someone who worked for him. Somehow that does not seem nor fair.

What about the honest, faithful, kind and generous? Not meet the same fate as the hypocrite, the infidel, the cruel and greedy? The death comes to all, good or bad. And soon they forget. Certainly that's not fair. Where are the scales of justice?

But it is even worse than that. You and I know that as often as not, is an evil man thrives well while suffering all kinds of afflictions. Earn the bully, and the weak pay the price. The cheater is remain unaffected, while the defendant is innocent. Crime too often is paid. The criminal does not really get away with murder. His victim suffers the loss. Justice stood on its head.

We know that life is full of injustices. Nobody denies that. From all sides. Our sense of fair play tells us that something is fundamentally wrong. It's out of date. We seek a world turned right side up. We want those who have been forced to suffer to get a fair return.

We those who have benefited others to receive their just reward. We want those who have abused others to get his just punishment. Anything else would be a travesty of justice.

Our true home

Why then, we are given a longing for justice and forced to live in an unjust world? It has the same agent who always generously to all our needs from others, created an elaborate hoax just to frustrate our desire for justice? Or could it be that this world is not our final destination?

Maybe we were made for a better world, a world without death, suffering and injustice. We find our ingrained sense of fair play to be in complete harmony with the reality of our true home.

Evolutionists have nothing to say about justice or fair play.

Questions to Consider:

1. If there are more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, why are we concerned with justice?

2. One more question: If there are more that the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, how can we ever acquire the intelligence to know that we are nothing more than the chance encounter of atoms to chance of matter?

About the Author

Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.

Fashion Look Book : Episode 5