We are striving to become a civilized society, we even make claim to being such, but the struggle continues. In years past, throughout history, physical confrontation has always been the final consequence. The reality is, it still is. Evidence to support that is everywhere. Man has always fought wars to end wars! Then we fight another. But suppose we did manage to end physical aggression, what would replace that as the ultimate consequence? Would it be the legislation of man? Whatever " laws " mankind as a whole adopts? A wonderful thought but one that will never be achieved. The reason for that is a simple one. Provide a legal definition for a single word that is universally accepted and understood. Right now in America there is a debate over the legal meaning of " man " in the law. It's true, their is a proposed change to the Constitution stating that all men ( and women ) are created equal. We need to include the word woman to be clear that is what we are talking about. But even before we can agree on that their is debate about other " choices. " What if I don't want to identify as either one of those? Will I still receive equal protection, am I not still created equal? You see the problem there don't you? How to legally define a single word! Is mankind a man, a woman, or some combination of both? And it is for that reason I say we will never reach a consensus as to the legal meaning of words. So, that just will not work as the final consequence. The law is subject to change. Indeed, do we not all agree that the law should be changed according to current thinking and sensibilities? Isn't that the argument that is always used? The law is outdated! We need to make progress, to be progressive! That always involves redefining things, mostly what we consider morally and ethically to be acceptable to the society.
All of that is in regard to civil matters. That is the consequence the law is concerned with. To avoid physical confrontation is to be civilized. Then we are told to keep a civil tongue in our head! It should come as no surprise when there are civil penalties for acting in an uncivilized manner. Consider recent events in the news as an example. An entire television series was cancelled. True that wasn't done by a legal authority, it wasn't a civil matter, but a business decision by a corporation. There are however provisions in the law for libel and slander. In recent years hate speech has been added to a list of civil crimes punishable by civil authority. And just what is a civil crime? It is defined as a crime between two or more people or a business. Criminal offenses, on the other hand, are a violation of local ordinances or state and federal statutes prohibiting certain conduct. The penalty is determined by the severity of the crime. How do we determine that? It is a rather subjective thing wouldn't you agree? There is a rather fine line between civil and criminal offenses.
We are doing that all the while claiming " freedom of speech. " We have placed a restriction on that when the consequence of that speech may cause harm to others. There can be civil penalties imposed. There can be consequences imposed for possible consequences. Think about that for a minute. I can be penalized, in varying degrees, for things that might happen. Or, at least, things that are likely to happen. For instance, hate speech. I may cause anything from hurt feelings to a riot! Surely we are justified in placing civil restrictions on that. Everyone agrees. Well, almost everyone agrees anyway. There are those that would make hate speech a criminal offense. A further progression? Is protecting that form of speech an outdated concept?
Just where am I going with all of this? I started out with the thought that the ultimate consequence for our actions has to be our conscious. This has to be true for the virtuous man. And yes, I mean women too, or whatever you identify yourself to be. Instilling the traits we consider to be virtuous has always been the function of spirituality. In the Christian tradition, the one I am most familiar with, there are four human virtues. Yeah, most of us have heard of the seven deadly sins. We are told to avoid those. But what are the four virtues? They are, not necessarily in order of importance, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. Justice being the one we hear used the most these days but not as a virtue, as an action. Prudence is that virtue that causes us to act according to our moral compass. When you are prudent, you make the considered and correct choice. Fortitude is the strength to persevere when faced with life's difficulties. Temperance is best summed up with an old adage, all things in moderation. It is Justice that I began thinking about. Justice is not simply making retribution or imposing a penalty on your fellow man for his indiscretions. Justice is a personal thing. Justice is concerned with giving everything and everyone their proper due. We all know the phrase from the Constitution penned by Jefferson, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regarding the rights of every man. He wasn't the first to say such. John Locke has been attributed with that but I read where Adam Smith said it first. Whoever said it first isn't really important just understanding those rights are. If we understand that and act with Prudence, Temperance and fortitude Justice will have been served. Our conscience is our guide and our conscience holds us accountable. I would think that is why Monroe said, To suppose any form of government will secure Liberty and Happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. In other words, man can not write laws that guarantee virtuous behavior. The best we can hope for from government is to govern, akin to Temperance. Prudence, Fortitude and Justice is up to the individual.
All of that is in regard to civil matters. That is the consequence the law is concerned with. To avoid physical confrontation is to be civilized. Then we are told to keep a civil tongue in our head! It should come as no surprise when there are civil penalties for acting in an uncivilized manner. Consider recent events in the news as an example. An entire television series was cancelled. True that wasn't done by a legal authority, it wasn't a civil matter, but a business decision by a corporation. There are however provisions in the law for libel and slander. In recent years hate speech has been added to a list of civil crimes punishable by civil authority. And just what is a civil crime? It is defined as a crime between two or more people or a business. Criminal offenses, on the other hand, are a violation of local ordinances or state and federal statutes prohibiting certain conduct. The penalty is determined by the severity of the crime. How do we determine that? It is a rather subjective thing wouldn't you agree? There is a rather fine line between civil and criminal offenses.
We are doing that all the while claiming " freedom of speech. " We have placed a restriction on that when the consequence of that speech may cause harm to others. There can be civil penalties imposed. There can be consequences imposed for possible consequences. Think about that for a minute. I can be penalized, in varying degrees, for things that might happen. Or, at least, things that are likely to happen. For instance, hate speech. I may cause anything from hurt feelings to a riot! Surely we are justified in placing civil restrictions on that. Everyone agrees. Well, almost everyone agrees anyway. There are those that would make hate speech a criminal offense. A further progression? Is protecting that form of speech an outdated concept?
Just where am I going with all of this? I started out with the thought that the ultimate consequence for our actions has to be our conscious. This has to be true for the virtuous man. And yes, I mean women too, or whatever you identify yourself to be. Instilling the traits we consider to be virtuous has always been the function of spirituality. In the Christian tradition, the one I am most familiar with, there are four human virtues. Yeah, most of us have heard of the seven deadly sins. We are told to avoid those. But what are the four virtues? They are, not necessarily in order of importance, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. Justice being the one we hear used the most these days but not as a virtue, as an action. Prudence is that virtue that causes us to act according to our moral compass. When you are prudent, you make the considered and correct choice. Fortitude is the strength to persevere when faced with life's difficulties. Temperance is best summed up with an old adage, all things in moderation. It is Justice that I began thinking about. Justice is not simply making retribution or imposing a penalty on your fellow man for his indiscretions. Justice is a personal thing. Justice is concerned with giving everything and everyone their proper due. We all know the phrase from the Constitution penned by Jefferson, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regarding the rights of every man. He wasn't the first to say such. John Locke has been attributed with that but I read where Adam Smith said it first. Whoever said it first isn't really important just understanding those rights are. If we understand that and act with Prudence, Temperance and fortitude Justice will have been served. Our conscience is our guide and our conscience holds us accountable. I would think that is why Monroe said, To suppose any form of government will secure Liberty and Happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. In other words, man can not write laws that guarantee virtuous behavior. The best we can hope for from government is to govern, akin to Temperance. Prudence, Fortitude and Justice is up to the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment