Thoughts on the Possible
A lot of the acrimony that exists in the world today as a whole, and even more so, within our own individual daily lives and thoughts is due largely to constraints put upon us by myriad factors as to what is and is not possible. Society, whether through law or custom, puts constraints upon our own existence, thus limiting the range of "possible." The information age, which has offered us a much greater realm of communication, has also put into place a system that makes understanding the possible more difficult. While people communicate over great distances, how well do they really understand what is going on in life through the communication of the written word. Furthermore, how does one trust exactly what is being said. I, for one, try to edit my statements to most accurately convey my thoughts, but, is that not, in fact camoflauging what lies truly within my thoughts? Does society and communication, in fact, not enable, but limit how we live our lives with the people around us?
I have generally led a very conservative way of life. That is, I recognize society's constraints and try to work to maximum flexibility within them. This is fairly easy to do as a child, and, while more difficult as a young adult, is still done without too much trouble. Going forward, however, into adulthood has caused me to wonder what exact obligations any individual has to the constraints of society and the law. As a future member of the legal profession, I certainly have some obligation to the law. But is there not higher moral or ethical laws that must be obeyed. For example, was it not right to smuggle Jews from Hitler's Germany or slaves from the American South, despite the direct contradiction to the existing law? If one accepts this argument, then where exactly does law derive its power from. That is, if some laws are countermanded by some higher moral, ethical, or societal law, then what power does the rule of law have. Therefore, the possible is constrained by the morals and ethics of society. But again, when society is wrong, as it has been in the past (the above counterarguments still apply), where then does one turn. It seems to me that there are only two potential answers to this dilemna.
The first answer is that there is a Higher Law, commonly referred to as God's Law. The second answer is that there is no Higher Law, that each individual, can and should make his choices in accordance with his own conscience. I find neither answer to be particularly satisfying. The second answer is too anarchic for me. The first answer is too subjective. To wit, is Higher Law to be judged by doctrinal Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, Islamic Law, liberal Protestantism (or many other possible variations)? Is Higher Law merely a reflection of society? These cannot be answered to my satisfaction. In the meantime, while personal choice seems to be promising, the collective of individuals would lead to anarchic system. Furthermore, it seems to be human nature that one's own pursuit of happiness supersedes all other mores in the long run, and this, ungoverned can only lead to trouble.
I'm going to explore this further, but Family Guy is on, so I'll be back in an hour maybe. We'll see...
Peace
I have generally led a very conservative way of life. That is, I recognize society's constraints and try to work to maximum flexibility within them. This is fairly easy to do as a child, and, while more difficult as a young adult, is still done without too much trouble. Going forward, however, into adulthood has caused me to wonder what exact obligations any individual has to the constraints of society and the law. As a future member of the legal profession, I certainly have some obligation to the law. But is there not higher moral or ethical laws that must be obeyed. For example, was it not right to smuggle Jews from Hitler's Germany or slaves from the American South, despite the direct contradiction to the existing law? If one accepts this argument, then where exactly does law derive its power from. That is, if some laws are countermanded by some higher moral, ethical, or societal law, then what power does the rule of law have. Therefore, the possible is constrained by the morals and ethics of society. But again, when society is wrong, as it has been in the past (the above counterarguments still apply), where then does one turn. It seems to me that there are only two potential answers to this dilemna.
The first answer is that there is a Higher Law, commonly referred to as God's Law. The second answer is that there is no Higher Law, that each individual, can and should make his choices in accordance with his own conscience. I find neither answer to be particularly satisfying. The second answer is too anarchic for me. The first answer is too subjective. To wit, is Higher Law to be judged by doctrinal Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, Islamic Law, liberal Protestantism (or many other possible variations)? Is Higher Law merely a reflection of society? These cannot be answered to my satisfaction. In the meantime, while personal choice seems to be promising, the collective of individuals would lead to anarchic system. Furthermore, it seems to be human nature that one's own pursuit of happiness supersedes all other mores in the long run, and this, ungoverned can only lead to trouble.
I'm going to explore this further, but Family Guy is on, so I'll be back in an hour maybe. We'll see...
Peace
posted by David Ebersole at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home