There are reasons and there are excuses. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the two. I think we give reasons when we feel our actions are justified, and excuses when we feel they are not. Excuses tend to shift the blame. The, it is not my fault mentality, see that a lot more often these days. Then they are reasons for doing a specific action that result in having to make excuses for that action. Those are the confusing ones. It happens when one group chooses to not listen to reason, but react on a visceral level. It is when discussion fails, that excuses begin.
The nature of man is visceral, that is undeniable. We must learn to operate within a certain set of guidelines to function effectively as a society. The establishment of those guidelines causes the friction. Some will say intellect determines the extent of " civilization " of man. Intellect certainly plays a major role in that, understanding the reasons as it where. The manufacturing of excuses to " overturn " reason also requires a certain degree of intellectual prowess. That is usually the function of lawyers. The quickest way to achieve this " overthrow " is to appeal to the visceral nature of man. This can manifest itself in language and tone. That is how protests begin, protests are a visceral approach to an intellectual problem. Visceral responses rely upon intimidation and force to be effective. Reason plays no role in this, excuses are given for that action, The standard response of " we had no choice " is the weapon of choice.
The largest stumbling block to the establishment of society is the standardization of a moral code. Some will label it religion. That is as accurate a name as one could apply I suppose. The delineation of those rights or " moral behavior " is the function of any religion. That was recognized and in America we established the separation of " religion " from " government. " The big issue, then and now, is that moral conscience was used to establish that very same government. If we cannot decide upon a " moral compass " how can we then decide the direction of government ? The answer is quite simple really. Government has no place in making moral decisions. You can not legislate morality.
The purpose of government is to fabricate a society where all may co-exist without fear of being wronged, by that government ! That, to me, is the fine point that is being missed in most of the discussions of today. Government ideally is the collective conscience of the people being governed.
Conscience is that inner sense of what is right and what is wrong. The question presented to government is, does that government have the right or obligation to determine that conscience ? No, it must be decided upon by the governed. The altering of conscience is brought about by what ? Will any law do that ? No, that answer is evident. Crimes, actions contrary to established moral behaviors, happen every day. The altering of conscience can only occur with a " religious " experience. I use religion only for the sake of convenience, feel free to apply whatever name you like. The point here is you can make law but law will not change the conscience of man. You may cause him to suppress his action, depending upon the strength of his visceral reaction. That is to say make him behave in a certain fashion, at least temporarily.
Can any government accomplish this task ? It is a task of herculean proportions and has not been sustained by any government. The problem lies when that government ( remember that government is the conscience of the people ) disregards conscience in favor of law. Conscience is concerned with the well being of others. That is the reason for government, not an excuse to make law.
The nature of man is visceral, that is undeniable. We must learn to operate within a certain set of guidelines to function effectively as a society. The establishment of those guidelines causes the friction. Some will say intellect determines the extent of " civilization " of man. Intellect certainly plays a major role in that, understanding the reasons as it where. The manufacturing of excuses to " overturn " reason also requires a certain degree of intellectual prowess. That is usually the function of lawyers. The quickest way to achieve this " overthrow " is to appeal to the visceral nature of man. This can manifest itself in language and tone. That is how protests begin, protests are a visceral approach to an intellectual problem. Visceral responses rely upon intimidation and force to be effective. Reason plays no role in this, excuses are given for that action, The standard response of " we had no choice " is the weapon of choice.
The largest stumbling block to the establishment of society is the standardization of a moral code. Some will label it religion. That is as accurate a name as one could apply I suppose. The delineation of those rights or " moral behavior " is the function of any religion. That was recognized and in America we established the separation of " religion " from " government. " The big issue, then and now, is that moral conscience was used to establish that very same government. If we cannot decide upon a " moral compass " how can we then decide the direction of government ? The answer is quite simple really. Government has no place in making moral decisions. You can not legislate morality.
The purpose of government is to fabricate a society where all may co-exist without fear of being wronged, by that government ! That, to me, is the fine point that is being missed in most of the discussions of today. Government ideally is the collective conscience of the people being governed.
Conscience is that inner sense of what is right and what is wrong. The question presented to government is, does that government have the right or obligation to determine that conscience ? No, it must be decided upon by the governed. The altering of conscience is brought about by what ? Will any law do that ? No, that answer is evident. Crimes, actions contrary to established moral behaviors, happen every day. The altering of conscience can only occur with a " religious " experience. I use religion only for the sake of convenience, feel free to apply whatever name you like. The point here is you can make law but law will not change the conscience of man. You may cause him to suppress his action, depending upon the strength of his visceral reaction. That is to say make him behave in a certain fashion, at least temporarily.
Can any government accomplish this task ? It is a task of herculean proportions and has not been sustained by any government. The problem lies when that government ( remember that government is the conscience of the people ) disregards conscience in favor of law. Conscience is concerned with the well being of others. That is the reason for government, not an excuse to make law.
No comments:
Post a Comment