April 25, 2005
Reflections on Religion III
American Military University
HM 230, Introduction to World Religions
by James Landrith
Reflections on Religion III
American Military University
HM 230, Introduction to World Religions
by James Landrith
I’ve always been fascinated by the flaws in human nature. In literature and films, I usually find myself appreciating the conflicted and imperfect hero who must struggle as much against his own inner demons as he must against the evils in society, rather than the ultimate hero who never falters or suffers self-doubt. However, it’s the evil villains and the troubled bad guy that always seem to fascinate me the most.
As a result of such observations, widely accepted notions of a clear-cut black and white approach to measuring good and evil never appealed to me. In fact, I tend to see gray areas as often, if not more, than good or evil in any given situation. Over the years, as a result of much reading and studying of philosophical, political and spiritual texts, I came to understand the existence of evil as necessary for good to exist. Evil, whether a result of an otherworldly creature such as Satan, or an inherent flaw in the human psyche, is an integral part of the human existence. Without evil, humanity would lack a gauge to accurately recognize the good in our species. Like it or not, for the time being, one condition compliments the other.
Determining right from wrong is not as hard for me as it has been in years past. Growing up, I initially turned to my parents and other authority figures for guidance as to determining right from wrong. Eventually, via public schooling I came to view adherence to authority figures and written rules and regulations as clear indicators of how to determine right from wrong. However, as an individual grows older and leaves home to begin their life as an adult, one begins to notice loopholes, contradictions and hypocrisy with regard to how legal and regulatory systems operate in the real world. After having reached this point in the mid-1990’s, I began to read classical liberal and natural law texts, such as those written by Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill, which in turn lead me to modern libertarianism, Ayn Rand and authors such as L. Neil Smith. I also rediscovered Robert A. Heinlein’s work and examined it from a clearer perspective. Libertarianism lead me to the non-aggression principle, also known as the zero-aggression principle.
This principle, simply put, means that your rights end at my nose, and vice versa. Since adopting this principle into my life, my choices on a daily basis are made in accordance with the following question, “does this action I’m considering involve the initiation of force or subjugation of the free will of another human being?” Obviously, this principle is neutral with regard to the morality of an action. This is intentional, as the morality of any action or decision is almost always subject to the perspective of the examining moralist. Simply put, right vs. wrong and morality are separate concepts as far as my perspective is concerned.
Now, as a libertarian, not a libertine, I view personal responsibility and free will as not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, I view the initiation of force, except in cases of self-defense or prevention of specific crimes, in the process of regulating individual morality, or social behavior as clearing falling on the “wrong” side of the decision making process. In short, free will and my own moral compass, in association with adherence to the zero-aggression principle guide my actions and decision-making on a daily basis.
The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory are at the heart of Socrates’ discussion of the origins of right and wrong for humanity. Simply put, these concepts ask “is an action is wrong because God said it’s off-limits, or did He ban it because it’s wrong?” This can also be viewed from the perspective of “is something right because God says it is, or is He simply commanding us to do the right thing because it’s the right thing?” This is very much a “chicken and egg” type of argument. In the end, these concepts are at the center of most arguments with regard to reason and logic as a basis for guiding one’s internal compass, versus divine will and organized religion as the basis for morality and civilization. However, it is possible, while difficult, to straddle both positions simultaneously.
{mos_sb_discuss:8}