compliance

  Once again, I find myself examining what I call situational morality. This is right in this situation but wrong in another. It requires the exercise of judgement, something I'm told I shouldn't do. How am I to react? It's almost as though each situation comes with its' own set of rules or guidelines. I can't murder you outside the womb, but I can inside. And even then, there is a situational morality involved. Is there a specific timeframe? Or does it apply at any time before birth? What's the situation? Have I discovered that the child may have a defect of some type and so that justifies an aborting of life? Or have I simply decided it would be too much of a hassle to raise a child, too expensive, or interfere with my career. I wasn't planning on having a child. Are all of those valid reasons? 

 I think everyone would agree that it is alright to kill someone before they kill you. I don't think the situation matters at all in that case. Whether it is in war or in your home if someone is trying to kill you, you can justifiably kill them first. Self-defense is a human right. Self-preservation is part of our DNA! Perhaps in different amounts but everyone will try to survive in some fashion. Now we all agree that suicide is a terrible thing. We have created crisis centers, interventions and even confine those expressing a desire to do so, but in some situations, we are saying we should assist them in any way possible. Doctors, those that have taken an oath to "do no harm" have even supported this morality in certain situations. Justifiable homicide. It's called a mercy.  Death is a viable choice. It's a mercy?

 I agree that morality is formed by the environment in which you live. You are taught what is morally expected/accepted in that society. That's the situational morality we live our lives by. Governments don't decide on morality however, they decide on legality. Well, unless that government is guided by a moral code as defined in religious texts. Muslim nations are like that, in most situations. But, like everything else there are exceptions depending upon the situation. Moral violations in those countries are normally only enforced as an act of retribution, not a matter of law. Someone wants to prosecute/persecute someone else for any number of reasons. Moral violations in our country are only prosecuted when there is a law about that. Murder is one of those. You can get the death penalty for that, although many places now prohibit that on the basis it is it is immoral. Twenty-seven states and the federal government allow the death penalty. Well, it all depends upon the situation, doesn't it?

 I do believe in natural law. I believe that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong. The objective of government is to guide the citizens to obey positive law. Positive law requires judgement and manmade laws, sometimes in contradiction to natural law. It requires real time punitive actions, unlike the punitive action of a God for violating moral law. 

 The ancient Greeks spoke of natural law, and it has been talked about ever since. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of natural law. We state these truths to be self-evident. The Constitution is an example of positive law. It's imperative that positive law find its' basis in natural law. When that is lost, the situation changes, and must be changed. Positive law that is, that is what has to be changed. And that is the situation we are facing today, in my humble opinion. Our positive laws have strayed too far from natural law. The constitution was written to enforce our declaration. We made that declaration because English laws violated natural law in so many areas a break was required. It appears we are approaching that very situation once again. Time once again to define our national morality. Let's all pray that it is based in natural law and not positive law. Positive law generally is to benefit one group, while natural law applies to all. And that is what we declared! It began with this statement; "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Natural law. We enforced it with this explanation: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That is the positive statement. Natural law is the morality, positive law should enforce that. 

 There are moral absolutes and relative morality. The ideal and the reality. I can believe in the absolute and practice the relative. We see this in religious practices all the time. The objective being to create a more convenient faith. Following all the rules, all the time, is very restricting. That is the reason there are so many denominations and definitions associated with the Christian belief system. Each one makes a minor adjustment, a little tweak here and there. King Henry V111 did that when the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce. He just started his own church that allowed that, just a minor change. We can see this happening right now. Many churches now have female priests and pastors. There is gay clergy. There are those now praying to a non-binary God. Certainly, a change in the situation, a relative morality in response to society and positive law. Positive laws attempt to define morality, or at least that should be the intent. The reality is positive law imposes societal morality. And in general, that will be whatever is the most convenient. 

 We use morals to justify our causes. For that reason alone, we have to adjust the morality of any given situation. We are justified in waging war when that war suppresses evil! In that scenario killing the enemy is 100% justified. It's the only way to stop them. We are then exempt from it's wrong to kill other people. Some people need killing. All wars, revolutions, coups or whatever are fueled by emotions and justified with morals. It all depends upon the situation. Do we respond morally or positively? One is dependent upon the other. The question being, do you want the punishment now or later? It is the threat of punishment that forces compliance, isn't it?