|
Recently, Frederick Turner (via InstaPundit) reflected upon the difference between those whose goal is the good, and those whose goal is the right.
Laws seem, as many philosophers have opined, to be based on one of two foundations: what is good, and what is right. Very roughly, the distinction can be found in the difference between our own two traditions, of Roman law, and English common law; further back, between the ancient Hebrew ritual law, and the code of Hammurabi. Legal experts will, I hope, forgive the many exceptions to these generalizations for their usefulness as an analytic tool of thought.Not only do I forgive the "many exceptions to these generalizations," I am so stunned by the sheer clarity of the author's thoughts that I would forgive a lot more than that. A topic like this cannot be discussed without generalizations -- the exceptions providing a collection of variables allowing further debate about the validity of the generalizations! Without generalizations, we'd have trouble seeing the forest from the trees. (For each tree is unique and different!)The distinction, even more generally, is between what is commanded of us by the gods or God (or, in later ages, by Humanity, by Nature, by Reason, or by Popular Will) on one hand; and what is required of us in the honest fulfillment of a contract, on the other. The former, which finds its Western origins in ancient Israel (and can be found also in the Confucian legal system of ancient China), sees law as a way to enforce the good -- the good as a transcendent endowment of human society that we can partly intuit, especially if we are talented, trained, learned, and morally upright. The latter, which can be identified roughly with the Hammurabic, Solonic, and English Common Law traditions, sees laws as the way to make sure the humble contracts that human beings make with each other have the support they need over and above the natural sanctions built into our families, our markets, and our practical agreed systems of mutual trust. The first emphasizes the good, the second, the right.
In this way, Turner looks at Roman, Christian, and Islamic Law through the general perspective of good versus right:
Roman law, though again it was based upon a transcendent conception of the good, made many concessions to the low demands of commerce. It gave much authority over to local magnates, capos, and dons, so that in exchange for a local return to the patriarchal customs of the tribe, there would be a general concession to the legal supremacy of the Senate (and later, the Emperor). However, such laws did not provide for the increasing numbers of helpless indigents that are spawned by mercantile padrón systems everywhere.British imperialists were known for treating their subjects as children -- although in their defense it should be noted that the law they attempted to impose was the law of right and not the good.Christianity, which began with a purely internal and voluntary law of the good -- love thy neighbor -- had inherited the inner ideals of the old Jewish moral law. But it was purged now, Christians believed, of a great burden of its literalism and legalism, and reinforced by the blazing hope of salvation and faith in the redemption. This new religion gradually created for itself the role of the Empire's welfare system. Finally the Empire itself simply could not manage without it, and was itself forced, under Constantine, to become the secular enforcer of Christian moral law. As the Roman Empire crumbled, the ideal of a society in which the highest moral precepts, enjoined by God, would be enforced by the State, burned brighter and brighter in the imagination of the world. The result was finally the birth of Islamic law, or the Sharia, in the seventh century AD. Sharia systematized and perfected the law of the good, and embodied one of the most beautiful, and tragically flawed, visions of society that our species had yet achieved.
All societies based on the enforcement of a law of good have tended to stagnate, wither, and eventually die.
And ultimately, the British allowed the colonies to outgrow this colonial status in much the same way parents necessarily allow their children more and more freedom -- which goes hand in hand with responsibility!
One of the chief worries in this blog has been over the growing tendency to treat American citizens as children -- moving us ever closer to a vast national kindergarten.
By their very nature, children cannot be trusted to make intelligent and informed choices. Therefore, until they have learned and demonstrated maturity (and responsibility), it is necessary to tell them what to do. Children are not old enough to choose the good or the right. Their parents have to tell them.
Like Frederick Turner, I worry incompatible schools of thinking -- and the primary problem may be a fundamental disagreement: ARE ADULTS CHILDREN? (The consequence being, of course, that if most adults are children, then they must be treated like children -- by an ill-defined force called AUTHORITY.)
Speaking of the British Empire's erstwhile "children", the following observations about Islam (which Turner calls "the good") come from a writer is from Karad in Maharashtra, India:
Muslims - Sick and Ill-treated ChildrenAt some early point in history, some leaders in some cultures decided that adults are like children (especially where it comes to vices like sex, drugs, and fun pursuits like rock'n'roll) and therefore must be told what to do. But because it is in their nature to break the rules, it was found that in practice the most effective rules are those said to emanate from God.Muslims have fought wars and thereafter stayed peacefully with the people of other religions. It is leaders, kings and fanatics who have used Muslims in the name of Islam for their selfish motives. Hindu leaders have coaxed Muslims on similar lines for their selfish interest. Today, every political party is trying to use Muslims for the party benefit by invoking the so-called injustice which has never been done to them.
State boundaries disputes and the Mandal Ayog exemplify the attitudes of selfish leaders. Congress, Janata Dal, United Front Groups are coaxing the people on caste and creed lines, thereby arousing hatred among them. Muslims are looked as vote-banks. Such selfish leaders and political parties can be understood only through the process of education.
Hindu Organizations should view Muslims as sick and ill-treated children of bad parents. Muslims should be caressed only with better education and not by giving concessions and temporary relief. Better family relations, respect for woman, freedom of thought, and basic understanding of human behaviour can make them real citizens. Muslims, therefore, are required to be educated with students of other faiths. They should attend the schools of Christians and Hindu Organizations. There should not be any special treatment for them as Muslims. Muslims can certainly improve through the study of science and humanities and not through Islam. They should be taught first to be human beings.
Almost all religions except Islam have accepted modern scientific approach. They have discarded old, impracticable and irrelevant religious customs. Muslims have to go in the same footsteps and become sensible and civilized. That will save Islam. Otherwise it is bound to crumble like Marxism.
Reactionary methods to improve or suppress Muslims will not succeed. Muslims are to be treated as human beings. They are to be made aware of freedoms, rights and duties. Unfortunately, Islam has not done this for its follower. Proper education will fulfil this job and bring Muslims into the mainstream with other societies. Gone are the days of war and supremacy. One has to live and let others live. Muslims have to come out of the fool’s paradise that they will rule the world through coercion.
Yet as culture advanced over the centuries, it was realized that goodness requires choice. Choice is not supposed to come from coercion.
I have a friend who does not believe in religious morality of any kind, nor does he think morality should be imposed on anyone. However, he is strictly monogamous, and would never cheat on his wife. Thus, if we go by literal definitions of the words, he is morally conservative. But that is not what is meant by the term "moral conservative" in modern usage. "Moral conservatives" (at least as the term is popularly used) are people who believe in moral coercion, by government.
Which means, ultimately, at gunpoint.
I am of the opinion that this is neither moral nor conservative. And even if we discount the role of government, it could be argued that if someone is obeying what he believes to be God's law and refrains from sexual transgressions for fear of divine punishment, he by his own definition is less moral than a morally conservative atheist, because the latter has made a free choice without fear of punishment, and without any compulsion.
When adults are treated as children, you get adult children.
Adult children cannot handle responsibility, and cannot say "No" to temptation or vice. They need to be watched constantly by authorities, whose job is to pry into their subjects' lives to the greatest extend possible -- even preventing them access to places like topless bars, gay bars, X-rated theaters, casinos, or even cable television.
Because, if the parental authorities turn their back for just a moment, unrestrained irresponsibility will start!
When the cat's away, the mice will play!
Of course, the authorities cannot be everywhere. Thus, events like stoning to death encourage group participation, and create a communitarian cult of violence.
Likewise, Muslim men (at least, followers of Saudi Wahhabism) are encouraged to treat their wives as children.
Allowing children authority over other children is an excellent way to maintain authority over children.
The system becomes almost self-enforcing.
Unless, of course, freedom sneaks in via things like rock'n'roll.
Freedom corrupts the very tyrannical, imposed-from-above, "good"!
I guess that means freedom is right.
(I think it can heal the sick and ill-treated children too!)