| "Are
all men and women equal in their intellect? Certainly
not. Are they equal in skills and talents or physical
abilities? Of course not. We are equal in our
capacity to understand justice and injustice. For
what is mankind without this awareness or recognition?
What good are thoughts if they bear no universal
consequences? |
Summary: It is a masculine, humane
struggle to be just. Indeed, justice is our most serious
matter and requires our consistent attention. For to the
extent that we refuse this contest, we are no more evolved
than are animals.
Topics:
1. Do We Have a
Right to Be Unjust?
2. Recognition
of Justice as a Prerequisite to Humanity
3. Justification Versus
Toleration
Dealing
with Social Injustice
Crimes of
Thought
The
Issue of Abortion (Infanticide)
Conclusion: Struggle
or De-evolve
1. Do We
Have a Right to Be Unjust?
We use various means to
describe it: natural law versus violation of natural law, good
versus evil, justice versus injustice, or right versus wrong.
Regardless of the terminology, most of us concur that there
are behavioral laws or ideals that operate in our universe.
Most of us would concur that our Creator, or some universal
source, has endowed mankind with the right and/or power to
make significant moral choices.
The words could be phrased more
eloquently, but the majority of people share some common
ground here — from which they may, if they so choose, build
upon. Moving forward from this common ground, consider whether
mankind has the natural right to make the wrong, or unjust
(the term we will use in this article), choice. We can draw a
distinct difference, for the right to choose does not
necessarily equate to a right to act without any universal
consequences.
If our natural rights extended
to the commission of injustice, then there would be no
injustice, and anything man did would either be just or
indifferent. In other words, if we were always justified no
matter how we acted, then no natural, moral laws would govern
our behavior. If this were the case, our conscience would be
unnecessary and there would be little or no need to waste our
time wondering whether there were anything beyond ourselves
and our personal whims.
We could express this in a
slightly different way: While we have been empowered to
select an unjust course of action, we do not have the "right"
to behave unjustly.
2.
Recognition of Justice as a Prerequisite to Humanity
We can argue — ad infinitum —
the particulars of what precisely constitutes justice and its
opposite, injustice. This debate provides the essence of
political conflict, and likewise supplied the motivation (at
least initially) for this article.
But if we can accept that
justice and injustice "exist" or have tangible meaning that
manifests itself in some form of universal consequence, we
have what amounts to a unique, shared philosophical foundation
— a foundation apparently unknown to all other creatures on
the face of our planet. The oft-repeated phrase, "I think,
therefore I am," pales in comparison to the potential of this
foundational power: "I recognize justice and injustice;
therefore I am."
We cannot prove definitively
that animals do not think or do not have some semblance of
self-awareness. Some dog owners may take issue, but it can be
argued that animals do not operate with the same
awareness of justice and injustice that human beings can
manifest (when they so choose). This
additional awareness or recognition, when employed,
distinguishes us from the rest of the
Animal Kingdoms and gives meaning to humankind. As echoed in the
Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights..."
Are all men and women equal in
their intellect? Certainly not. Are they equal in skills and
talents or physical abilities? Of course not. We are equal
in our capacity to understand justice and injustice. What is mankind without this awareness or recognition? What
good are thoughts if they bear no universal consequences?
Without this ability (or gift),
we are no more evolved than any other animal, and we should harbor no higher expectations of
one another than we do a rat or a vegetable. With a respect
for this ability, and a commitment to nurture it, we can
theoretically ascend to the greatest heights of the universe.
Top
3.
Justification Versus Toleration
Let us travel one step further
and consider how this foundation plays out as we interact with
one another. When we witness injustice, does it necessarily
follow that we have a natural right, in all cases, to stop
that injustice? Here is where our foundation starts to break
down and where we lose people — and lose them fast. Consider a
few examples.
Top
Dealing with Social Injustice
Based upon our previous
assertions, it could easily be argued, for instance, that it
is unjust and immoral to allow those who cannot help
themselves to suffer endlessly without attempting to provide
them some form of assistance. If there is something higher
than ourselves, then it stands to reason that we are in some
way obligated to attempt to assist each other when we
are able. To fail to do so would be unjust.
In response to this injustice,
statists advocate that we collectively compel one other to
financially assist those who cannot help themselves. And they
appear willing to stop at nothing to implement such force. If
we were justified in using whatever means were necessary to
prevent injustice, then their position would be correct.
Those too callous to feel
inherent reluctance to exercise such force, need only consider
the dismal historical results such force has exerted on
previous societies. Those more sensitive and open to common
sense and reflection would wonder: Do we really have an
inalienable right to compel others to surrender their property
whenever we witness injustice?
Top
Crimes of Thought
The American Jurisprudence of
the past ideally bases punishment on the perpetrator’s
actions, whether the act was premeditated or accidental, and
whether there was malicious intent. Today militant homosexual
and minority race groups seek thought crimes legislation that
adds enhanced penalties based upon the thoughts and
philosophies of the perpetrator.
Most people would agree that it
is unjust to hate other people simply because of their skin
color, gender, or physical appearance. How can someone help
these traits? But do we have the right to punish people
because they unjustly hate? Should we punish them for their
thoughts in addition to their actions and intentions?
If one does not inherently
cower from such a proposition, one need only consider the
gulags of the former Soviet Union and the racks of the
Catholic Inquisition. Mankind is hard pressed enough to judge
the actions and motivations of others. He is entirely inept
and incapable of judging and punishing the philosophical
thoughts of others, and to attempt to do so would be
inherently unjust and foolish.
Top
The Issue of Abortion (Infanticide)*
On the anti-life extreme, the
baby is a conglomeration of cells, is completely at the mercy
of the mother’s whims, and has no entitlement until the infant
breaks the barrier of the womb. This is absurd. Essentially,
we are to believe that a bag of water surrounded by a thin
layer of skin, defines the border of life and human rights.
You’re out of luck on one side, and a full-fledged human being
on the other.
These same advocates would
scream bloody murder were one to reach into a Kangaroo’s pouch
and kill its offspring. Never mind that the baby Kangaroo
exits the womb and enters the pouch at approximately the same
developmental phase as a 7-week old human infant* in the womb.
It is cruel and barbaric to kill the marsupial, but a service
to womanhood to kill a human infant. They will weep at the
pain the marsupial budding nervous system senses, but
callously disregard the silent cries of the human infant.
* Note: The terms "infant" and
"infanticide" are used purposely. Part of the gamesmanship
surrounding the anti-life movement involves dehumanizing the
infant and the act. For more information, see an excellent
explanation provided by the organization,
Accountability Utah.
On the pro-life-at-all-costs
extreme, infants are alive, and perhaps even endowed with a
soul, from the moment of inception (or fertilization of the
sperm and egg). As such, they are entitled to governmental
protection equal to that of any other human being. The use of abortifacients of any kind, therefore, is murder. This
includes normal birth control pills, which can artificially
cause a fertilized sperm and egg to fail to attach to the
uterine lining, thus terminating the pregnancy and ending the
life intended by God to continue to develop in the womb
Note: As we understand it, the
significant percentage of fertilized eggs that spontaneously
abort are generally not viewed as the termination of life or a
murder by God, but rather a natural occurrence.
There is nothing inherently
unjust, or perhaps even inaccurate, with this belief of the
origins of human beings. Beliefs are fine and we are all
entitled to them, and there are interesting arguments made on
all sides — both spiritual and secular — regarding souls,
definitions of life, etc.
The problem lies in backing
this belief up by force. Taken to the farthest extreme, if we
collectively — via government — have the same obligation to
prevent any form of murder during early pregnancy as we do
later in the pregnancy, or after the birth, then there are
some frightening ramifications that the pro-life-at-all-costs
movement needs to acknowledge and defend.
For example, in addition to
outlawing medical abortions (save perhaps in the hypothetical
situation where the life of the mother could not otherwise be
saved through Caesarian), the birth control pill (of which the
Morning After Pill is simply an altered hormone formulation),
would likewise be banned.
Note: C. Everett Koop, M.D.,
former U.S. Surgeon General, stated: "Protection of the life
of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen.
In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one
instance where the child had to be aborted to save the
mother's life. If toward the end of the pregnancy
complications arise that threaten the mother's health, the
doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His
intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby.
The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the
mother's life is in danger."
To conduct our judicial system
in a general, uniform, and fair manner, we would also need to
ban certain herbs that have been used to abort early
pregnancies for thousands of years. We would ban hot saunas
and Jacuzzis for women who engage in sexual intercourse as
these have been used in the Orient and elsewhere to terminate
early pregnancies. Extreme exercise could also be fatal to the
early infant and would need to go.
Taken to the extreme of
preventing all abortions in early pregnancies, the woman
disappears and the infant life becomes all-encompassing. Under
this reasoning, government becomes immense and terrible,
easily tyrannizing all aspects of our lives.
Regardless of whether abortions
during early pregnancy constitutes murder, it should become
clear to any rational person that there are limits to our
rights as human beings to prevent them. Most of us would, for
instance, hesitate to imprison or execute a 13-year old who
refused to carry the seed of her rapist, and instead took an
herb or birth control pill.
And we would hesitate for good
reason. Regardless of what others might tell us, deep down
inside we would know that we are crossing the border of what
we are rightfully empowered to do in this circumstance.
Therein lies the difference between justifying an act and
tolerating it. We might not be able to justify the actions of
the 13-year old, but we must tolerate it. We would innately
sense our complete inability to justly judge or punish her.
(Some might term this "mercy," but we do not make such a
distinction.)
Top
Conclusion: Struggle or De-evolve
Most of us accept the notion
that we are endowed by a universal source to choose how we
will think and act, and that our decisions may be just or
unjust: I recognize justice and injustice; therefore I am.
What we often lack is the courage and commitment to critically
examine how we should deal with injustices we witness and
encounter. To fail to act in some circumstances is clearly
unjust, and to act beyond our scope and abilities is also
unjust. In what combination do we speak against it, use force
against it, or tolerate it?
Historians frequently place a
value upon past and present societies based upon how "civil"
they are or were. Unfortunately, in recent decades, our entire
notion of "civility" has been re-defined. Rather than measure
justice (or mercy for that matter), modern "civility" instead
focuses on how patient and docile victims and onlookers can be
at avoiding justice and any accompanying conflict. This is
neither just nor civil, but effeminate and debasing. Those who
abuse are given an undue pass while those who cry for justice
are portrayed as "uncivil" and malcontent.
We define "civil society" based
upon the average inclination of its members and participants
to be just in their dealings with their fellow men and women —
and not merely to those who are popular and prestigious, but
to those who have the least value in that society.
It is a masculine, humane
struggle to be just. Indeed, justice is our most serious
matter and requires our consistent attention. For to the
extent that we refuse this contest, we are no more evolved
than the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
Top
