top of page
derrellwriter

derrellwriter

Admin
More actions

Profile

Join date: Nov 25, 2024

There’s nothing to show here yet

When this member adds info about themselves, you’ll see it here.

WHENCE COMES JUSTICE?

 

 

We turn our focus on the ground of ethics. Upon what idea or religion or materialistic philosophy can we find sufficient, reliable ethic that is applicable cross-culturally? More thoughts will be added, though admittedly, I am slow to post. I appreciate your patience.

 

Materialism and Morality

 

We all sense on some level an intuitive[1] appeal to a moral standard that says, “Hey! What you did isn’t right. You can’t do that, despite being stronger. In fact,” as some may argue, “because you’re stronger, you ought to be a better example.” They expect our politicians, law officers and military leaders ought to be examples extraordinaire. Whence does that sense come from?

 

Could it be herd survival instinct; that is to say, that the herd collectively possesses this instinctual sense that rulers ought to behave themselves for the safety and well-being of herd members? But whence arises herd ethical expectation? That idea cannot originate from some nebulous collective thought as if it were a consciousness thought-cloud hovering over the herd invading their minds. No, it first originates from one individual shared with others within the herd of humanity. They are concerned about their own personal safety. They unite in agreement toward that purpose. They recognize that leaders are in a position of power, and out of fear, they could argue, “You’d better behave yourself, and in fact, we’d be more comfortable if you were even a better example!” But what example can they appeal to? Is our sense of justice merely taught, whether by parents, church or school, as each child is a blank slate?

 

I can see how fear can motivate those concerns for personal safety, and we could mislabel it justice. But that isn’t justice. It’s fear of abuse or death. To what law can they appeal? They can argue only out of survival fears; they cannot argue that abuse against them is a moral failure. That is a cry for justice.

 

On the world stage, how is it that the United Nations call such and such King or Emperor just and benevolent, or a dictator? By what moral standard does the U.N. appeal to judge other nations?

 

The base laws of Nature that Materialists ascribe to, are the instincts of Survival, and Dominance that ensures the first. I presume therefore only one instinct as they both serve only one purpose—survival. But continuing the common thesis of two instincts, these serve as the a priori moral standard for human behavior.

 

On a personal individual level, if a strong man approaches you and punches you in the face and steals your valuables, on what ground can you appeal? He is the dominant one. Bound by the two laws of Nature, a (supposed) victim’s appeal against abuse, theft of property, or fear of death, is based on survival instinct. But victims cannot argue against the second law of nature, Dominance, as if it were a moral evil. The dominant person’s survival instinct is to assure his survival is dominate over yours. By victims appealing to a “moral” wrong, would violate the strong man’s “moral” right of dominance.

 

Victims (the weaker) have no appeal beyond fear. What of rape? Many justify sex on mutual consent. But that is a concept someone thought of arbitrarily. They justify human behavior on their idea of what sounds morally correct. But that idea cannot override the second law of nature, Dominance. The drive for dominance is inhered with something more than the desire for survival. An example is the sex instinct. (Note, that some have argued that the sex drive is Nature’s instinct for propagation. I can easily argue the case that sex isn’t only for propagation of the race, but for pleasure.) Hence, the strong man who desires pleasure can justify rape based on the “moral” law of Dominance. The woman (or child!) cannot appeal to a moral violation without violating the law of Dominance.

 

Whence then comes our internal sense of Justice? But I get ahead of myself in my presentation. We must consider more in depth the concept of moral justification.

 

 

Morality Exists as Ideas

 

Recognizing the two laws of Nature that drive life, I argue that any discussion on morality is vain, for the Strongest may conquer those who argue “abuse of morality,” and the Strong justly claims it is their right to do so. Many theses have been submitted in attempts to justify human behavior, with consequential punishments against those who violate justified behavior. On what basis do I claim that discussions on morality are useless based on a purely Materialistic avenue?

 

Because such discussions of morality (whether against two individuals, or before the United Nations jurisprudence) rests in one justifying jurisdiction: the mind in the form of an idea. Moral concepts are exactly that. Concepts. Thoughts in one person’s mind, presented to others (who may or may not agree). If enough people consent, they pass laws (local, or national, or international), based on agreed ideas in people’s heads. Others disagree, and we’ve got wars. The law of Dominance takes over. If Hitler had won, who’s to say the slaying of any and all he didn’t like is somehow immoral, deserving of punishment?

 

Every person’s idea is equal to any other, for the justifying qualifier is merely “idea” (thoughts) in someone’s head. Therefore, no idea can be superior to the two laws of Nature. How can they posit their morality exceeds either of these two laws, when we are but physical matter, and that gray organ resting on our shoulders is all we’ve got to boast our ideas are somehow superior to others?

 

Such ideas cannot adequately explain our inhered sense of Justice. Hitler punched others, and Jews and the whole united world cried Foul! And rightfully so. Punch a Materialist in the face, and he’d cry Foul. For good reason. Something lives in the breast of humanity that appeals to Justice. Even the most primitive cultures appeal to it. Steal a primitive man’s wife and you’ll experience his response.

 

That inner intuition appeals to something greater, something or someone to whom we can appeal to for this seemingly mystery called Justice.

 

Judeo-Christianity

 

If we are but molecules colliding with other molecules of earthen material, how and why do we possess a fifth sense of something superior, something beyond us? Why does the song “Over the Rainbow” call to our hearts? As C.S. Lewis bore out, our senses: hunger, thirst, sexual desire, and the satisfaction of beauty (ethereal pleasure), lead us to find a corresponding fulfillment of those desires. God is economical. If He creates a longing, He created the corresponding fulfillment. For hunger, He created food. For thirst, He gave us water. For sexual desire, the sexes are provided. For beauty, flowers and sunsets are given. If we find in ourselves a desire for something greater than ourselves, it corresponds that something must exist to satisfy that longing, put there in our souls by our Creator.

 

We find then that our inner intuition, that inner sense of Justice exists, put there from beyond mere molecular material. Materialism cannot explain this strong sense of justice that resides in every human, in every culture. I have yet to find one who believes in amorality that does not seek justice when wronged. As in, it may be justified to lie to others, but when they catch someone lying to them, well, the audacity!

 

That intuitive sense of Justice, seemingly nebulous, is powerful. It must exist beyond materialism. Hence, God, having put in us that longing has created the corresponding fulfillment. God called prophets to reveal Himself to us, and to provide the objective morality that is applicable to all people, in all ages, for all ethnicities. There is found no greater morality given to men than by those Jewish prophets and Apostles. In fact, their own prophets professed that God said His moral laws are for the whole world. No other morality can be applicable for every culture, every race. And God claims to have sent His Son as a Savior for us who have broken His laws; a claim that the Christ Himself adhered to and is presented as the Hope of the World.

 

 

 

 

[1] Webster defines intuition in part as “immediate cognizance or conviction without rational thought: revelation by insight or innate knowledge.

bottom of page