This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
All aspects of our ability to experience the world around us can be broken down into four natures of universal law which govern every aspect of lifestyle and provide us with a structure to understanding the world. These laws which I will call Natural Laws are listed as fallow: The Law of Orders, the Law of Exchange, the Law of Progression, and the Law of Consequence. Each of these laws relates to a certain aspect of human life, without which the loss of even one would destroy our understanding and interaction with the world as we know it; they are universal and necessary and apply to animal life just as much as humans. As they are all involved concepts I will break them down one by one, starting with the Law of Orders. The law of Orders is an excellent place to begin our look at Natural Laws since we will find that each being necessary and constant they also are reliant on each other in order to continue as constants. And so in considering the concept of orders we must recognize the connection it holds to the others in organizing them, this should be kept in mind when considering the distinction and purpose of the other laws and how the others relate back to Order. When we say Orders we of course are referring to the Organization of all things. All things exist within a set order or organizational distinction, and are subject to that order belonging to its organization, such as, a cup belongs to the organizational order of a cup, and a ball belongs to the organizational order of a ball, etc. However these orders extent far and beyond the mere concepts of physical objects and exist in various forms in human interaction such as relationships, monogamous and intimate. Nature provides in its countless varieties of life forms a constant with these relationships. To go into detail, intimate relationships fall into the order of reproduction, and are used specifically for the purpose of propagating a species to future generations; this is one example of how orders exist in our day to day lives. However as laws have a basis for which they are to be fallowed there may also be examples to where they are not. A basic example of this would be found in the homosexuality of a species. This of course violates the Natural Law of Orders since it goes against the purpose to which sexual intercourse with in a species was organized. Naturally we are created in very distinct ways, male and female to state the obvious. This order is designed to work together by natural process, fitting and behaving in a certain manner in order to produce life by which the cycle of a species order may continue. Homosexuality violates this law in two ways. The first is that the disregard of the process by which life is created would eventually lead to the denaturing of the species found in this practice, leading to an end of its order. This law of Orders functions in a way to sustain and promote order to the greatest extent and variety and does not work to destroy any order, otherwise it could not exist. So there we have an error in this practice. But the second violation exists in the physical practice of homosexuality since, as I ve said, the differing bodies of male and female are designed to fit and work together toward natural processes where as the opposite does not fit or work together at all and is instead in opposition. As such practices in homosexuality becomes nothing more than a selfish, self gratifying, and self seeking behavior since it cannot serve a function outside of the self. The action of sexual gratification between male and female bodies may also fall into violation of the law by which sex was organized to function because constantly give in to carnal desires and lustful thinking also serves no purpose outside of the self and make no place for the consideration of the other person and so such pleasures should be kept in check and only used in
the proper place. Marriage is an ideal place for sexual practices to be held since it involves a public and private commitment to another person, and so keeps in harmony with the law of Orders. This gives us insight into another Order, the order of companionship which suggests to us that our species like many others is meant to be monogamous. Chemical processes are put in place in order to sustain relationships formed between two individuals. At first the key chemicals involved are endorphins which give a person a sense of happiness and satisfaction whenever they are around someone of interest. Over time, and as the relationship deepens however, endorphins are released less and less, and is eventually replaced by another chemical called Oxytocin a hormone more frequently known to play a role in mother child bonding during feeding, also has a role in bonding couples together for their lifetime, and is found in both men and women. But it is important to remember that the companionship of two people of the same sex cannot be in harmony with this Law even in marriage since the two are not under any circumstances able to complete the function that sex was organized to carry out As this law (the Law of Orders) works to sustaining itself, it may by no means be unreasonable to consider that certain processes may exist to prevent discourage long or short term practices of an order to continue in a manner contrary to the function it was organized to practice. One way this might be achieved, in species for example, is extinction in the long term sense while the short term may be something less permanent such as disease. Which in fact afflict and spread rampantly threw sexually promiscuous cultures and communities. There are many ways in which this first Law can be and has been violated aside from those already listed which may include but are not limited to: Abortion, which terminates the natural processes which a women s body is carrying out, unless the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother or child both. Also Divorce, which terminates the commitment made in marriage to endure together to the end of one s life; commitments especially of such great significance should always be honored and endured and should not be made lightly. Adultery, which also violates the marriage commitments to one s spouse and may be a justification for one member leaving their spouse by divorcement when the offence is not their own but the others. Spousal abuse, which again violates the marriage commitment in that marriages often state or imply that a couple will endure together and love and support and help one another, and I don t know of any circumstance where abuse is in harmony with any of these statements. Objections to this argument and arguments designed to counter these statements should be kept in context. It is important to note that certain laws a priory or a posteriori may exist without anyone knowing it. Nevertheless, ignorance of a law does not eliminate the law; it only makes the consequences of that law non applicable in every instance to those breaking it, while those unwittingly fallowing a law may unwittingly fail to recognize the benefits. Such is the case with any law. Next we should consider the Natural Law of Exchange. This law refers to the state of interaction between any object, and considers Newtonian physics as well as Human interactions regarding Morals and there subsequent dilemmas, and are only distinct from each other by their individual orders. This idea of exchange is easily seen in physics as one ball hitting another produces a reaction in which the
ball being hit take energy from the first and moves across a surface. An exchange has taken place where one objects action produces a reaction to every other object it encounters. That reaction in objects as they encountered each other is not the end result of the reaction but another takes place in the original ball, that is, it stops. Some of the energy forced into a neighboring ball recoils back into the original ball slowing it down or stopping it all together. Likewise there are subsequent reactions to behaviors we produce as people, both which occur externally and internally, only in this case we are exchanging not energy but experience. Psychology is the primary field in which these interactions are studied and have a wide range of topics. I wish to focus on one, particularly Morals. In the past moral values have been tossed back and forth as a relative concept brought about by cultural distinction or have been thought to be an obscure innate constant handed down by God that must be fallowed. Philosophers have debated for years on these points. Morals: Why have them? Rather a better question would be, what are they? Generally the idea of morals has to do with conforming to rules of right conduct. Then we must ask what is right and what is wrong. If there is a distinction that can be made than aught there to be a definite answer to the question? There are several ideas about Morals I feel need to be cleared up before going further. The ideas of moral ethics are clearly divided into many sub categories of two basis theories; they are Ethical Relativism and Ethical Objectivism. Some fallow that because there is a God and he is just (or moral) that He gives us laws of morals to fallow, and that is where morals come from, the scriptures being the sores of all the truths about morals. This can t be since there are many who we would see as very moral people yet have had no religious training, they may not even believe in religion. Also an appeal to authority cannot make a good argument for morality. If we only fallow moral principles because someone said we should, then we are only fallowing an idea blindly without understanding of the significance. And if we are being moral because someone said you will suffer if you don t, than we are only acting out of fear which falls outside the realm of moral character. Moral must exist independently of any deity though that deity may support morals. In order for us to have a good reason for being moral, morals must not be the result of divine creation but as an eternal principle to which divinity is derived, not the other way around. In other words God does not make morals what they are, morals are because they are, and God is because he is moral. This being the case Christian behavior to fallow God is more reasonably justified. Next is the knowledge that morals differ greatly from one society to another and have always in the past been dependant on how a society has developed from its experiences; but is there one right that is right for everyone? Today many mainstream moral principles have crossed almost every border and found their way into the deepest regions of human populous. Ideas of criminal punishment, social etiquette, taking of life, stealing, modesty, and the ideas we hold to each of these, are of a modern societal nature, however are not new by any means. Still they exist more prevalently than ever before in the world today. Facilitated by the spread of technology, communication, religious text, education, and government reforms, mainstream society has become globalized. Though there have been mountains of difference in
moral standards among peoples in the past, as modern society flourishes, its ideas about true moral judgment have been adopted and become more uniform worldwide. Why? I believe there are two reasons. The first is that society, like scientific discovery is self correcting. Over time people from all over the world will generate a better way of living. Doing so again and again over time will unlock the true order of morals, what there are, and how to fallow them. The second has to do with why this process has taken so long. Confusion in the past about what morals are and the difference between right and wrong and the reasons we still debate it now are that we lack a clear definition of what standards are right and which are clearly wrong. The truth of this lack of understanding can be seen in the great variety of, what are called, moral dilemmas. Naturally we would not have such a thing as a moral dilemma if we had a clear understanding of what morals are and how to fallow them. Objectivists have long believed in the idea of innate independently existing true morals, absolute ethical principles. But how to clearly define what they are is difficult because of our moral dilemmas. Most societies in the past have developed rules around moral standards to accommodate conundrums such as these and thus develop their differences. Individuals also in finding themselves in a moral pickle seek for alternatives to solve situational difficulty. Psychological brake down of such dilemmas may assist us in understanding them better. By considering any action of any individual, we may conclude that there are four key judgments we can make about a persons action. These are, 1) doing the right thing for the right reason, 2) doing the right thing for the wrong reason, 3) doing the wrong thing for the right reason, and 4) doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Given this information it is no wonder we sometimes have a hard time with right and wrong, but I think reason can help us.
The Next law is the Law of Consequence which warrants the understanding that if I act than I will receive action consequently from my doing. Likewise if I do not act than I will receive action based upon my choice, consequently from my inaction. There is no choice we cannot avoid it and similarly to the Law of Exchange there is always a movement between these two behaviors. It follows that a Law of consequence must exist because exchange takes place. But though similar in conception they work as two separate entities toward the same end, which end is order. We will now see how the Law of Orders and the Law of Consequence are connected. Consider Socrates in Plato s Republic Socrates is goaded by Glaucon about the nature of morality and tries to make his argument foolproof by designing a scenario in which a farm boy named Gyges finds a ring that allows him to become invisible and essentially immune to any consequences. We can assert two protests here by incorporating the Laws of Consequence and exchange. Obviously the moral implications of such a thing as the ring of Gyges would be great and there would be those wishing to posses such a ring, but though the story has practical application to reasoning out the possibilities of moral behavior the scenario as a purely reasonable argument is completely invalid, not because such a ring does not exist or that no one has found such a thing to exist or that it is a story made up for arguments sake but because its premise goes
against Natural orders in order to prove a point, such an argument cannot be valid. Here Glaucon is making the assertion that consequences can be eliminated without consequences being eliminated.
Say that you did posses a ring that enabled you to do what you want with no consequences. Does not the idea of moral behavior stem from the concept of consequence for action? Hence if there were no consequences for action, than by process there would be no law acquainted with any of your actions, if so than there is no purpose or reason behind action so long as law is not in place. Without law we may then question the purpose of existence. To clarify, there being no purpose or reason behind action without law, I mean that there could be no significance to action since if there is no consequence than there could be neither negative consequence nor positive consequence, so there would be no reason to posses such a ring, since it would do you neither good nor evil. However if we were to assume that by possessing the ring of no consequence and understood that it only eliminated the negative consequences leaving you to only gain or benefit from its use than we must also understand based on the premise that there is no negative consequence that there would be no sorrow nor gilt nor burden of any kind for action taken while possessing this ring. However since our understanding of the world is empirical, solely based upon the foundation of experiences, if we do not posses guilt and cannot sorrow nor feel any burden than we cannot posses any understanding of pleasure or happiness nor even success. So again the possession of such a ring would still neither serve you good or evil and possessing it would be a waist since you would be without the ability to experience the joys and pleasures of success. Also, by so eliminating consequence you are only eliminating law, and without law there is no order. Order maybe a relative term in this case since without law to give the word substance there could be no concept of order in our consciousness. This being the case can you imagine how living would be? With no law or concept of order than life as we understand it would immediately cease to be, since all we would have left would be existence with actions we don t understand. We would not know why we do what we do or why we go where we go, nor know any purpose for our existence, but existing none the less we would be unaware of it and could only be categorized with the animals or perhaps less. It is important to keep our mind clear about which actions and ideas we choose to entertain. Much of our human wisdom may lead us to flattering thoughts and ideas such as the ring of Gyges. But make no mistake; there is order in our world and for a reason, without which we could not exist as we do. And as we do exist as we do, excepting that fate and its implications to our reality we learn to gain from it rather than spend our days wishing for something that cannot be.
Similarly to the ideas posed by the ring of Gyges talked about in Plato s Republic, Socrates posed a similar situation. Summarized by William Lawhead, If you only have just one more day to live and can expect nothing but a blank after that, Socrates feels that you would still have all the reason you need for improving your soul; you have yourself to live with that one day, so why live with a worse self, if you could live with a better one instead. (Lawhead 29) Despite this simple truth understanding of the nature of reality and how happiness is found many choose to live a life of immorality. Perhaps this is because they have failed to recognize this truth; I believe that some have chosen to ignore it, finding the more simple solution to their needs and apatite s more appealing since it requires less work. Upon the arrival of this realization they would become diluted by the process of acting immorally, quickly satisfying themselves, leading to a miscarriage of a hope in moral thought. This could be called a retardation of principles and moral judgment since they become less able to act in a moral fashion, becoming reliant on instant gratification; instead of working toward a better lifestyle, taking instead of earning. This concept inconsequently reflects the words of the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith who stated that, Sin retards the mind. ( )
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.