Czernobog
Gold Member
I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation. So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually revels in the opportunity. Ask any random 100 people:
On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation. I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct. Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about me. Well, I happen to like breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue. So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me: No one is allowed to kill anyone. Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind. Viola! Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society. This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard. It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect me from you. And every basic law has the same base:
I submit that religious justification came later. this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits. in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious. The more clever want power. They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community. Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "The Divine" (insert the name of your god of choice here). Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere man. But...if God delivered these commands, wellll...that's God, so obviously these rules must be valid, and be obeyed. Congratulations, the first theocracies are born. Also, moralism is born.
Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course. This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior". The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination. You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others. However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society. The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending. "Society" is nothing more than a group of individuals who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct. Remember? Protect me from you. Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.
Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.
I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually revels in the opportunity. Ask any random 100 people:
If you were guaranteed no repercussions or consequences, can you think of anyone that you would like to see dead?
And I rather suspect that 98% would easily be able to list off at least one, or two people that they would absolutely like to be allowed to relieve of their irritating habit of breathing - cheating ex-spouses, cruel previous employers, ex-friends who betrayed them, someone.
On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation. I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct. Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about me. Well, I happen to like breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue. So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me: No one is allowed to kill anyone. Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind. Viola! Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society. This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard. It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect me from you. And every basic law has the same base:
- Theft: I don't want my shit taken. No one gets to take anyone's shit. Protect me from you.
- Assault: I don't like pain: No one gets to beat anyone up. Protecting me from you.
I submit that religious justification came later. this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits. in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious. The more clever want power. They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community. Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "The Divine" (insert the name of your god of choice here). Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere man. But...if God delivered these commands, wellll...that's God, so obviously these rules must be valid, and be obeyed. Congratulations, the first theocracies are born. Also, moralism is born.
Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course. This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior". The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination. You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others. However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society. The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending. "Society" is nothing more than a group of individuals who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct. Remember? Protect me from you. Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.
Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.
Last edited: