Dec 6, 2023Liked by Melissa Mistretta, John Mistretta
"it did not tell him what to do, but it always told him what not to do."
This reminds of the dichotomy between the Golden Rule and the Silver Rule. The former is an important guide. But the latter is the only thing upon which political laws can be based. We cannot tell people exactly how nice they should be or how much money they ought to give to charity. But we can tell them what they must NOT do.
This is very true, and I think it brings up an interesting point about the origin of laws.
Eventually they become corrupted by the passing of time and their growth in scale (we can certainly see this in America today), but when they're first written down, at least ideally, they're reflections of the moral code that the people they govern have already agreed upon.
A lot of times, they have a spiritual origin (I'm thinking specifically of the way the moral code of Christianity is expressed in the laws of the United States). This is probably because the way humans have made sense of the world around them has historically been through a religious/spiritual lens, but it also kind of reminds me of Carl Jung's 'collective unconscious'—the idea that there might be some kind of universal knowledge that people tap into when they're writing these myths, where objective 'truth' can be accessed.
I think you're right to point out the Golden Rule/Silver Rule dichotomy. For one, it highlights the limitations of political laws (it was never supposed to be the government's place to tell you how to live your own life, although we can see this barrier being chipped away at today). But the limitations of government necessitates another moral compass to direct peoples' behavior in a positive manner. This used to be religion, but religions don't 'speak' to people anymore. Thus, people are without a guide, and the 'masses' are looking for a compass. This is (probably) why so many people are looking towards politics to fill the void. Of course, as we both know, politics can't and shouldn't perform this function.
In an ideal world, people would do the work to form their own moral compass (this was the whole point of this post). But there's not much that can be done about mental laziness. Who knows, though—maybe, in the absence of a clear, established belief system, people will have no choice but to start thinking for themselves again.
That collective unconscious understanding of a moral code is real. It is natural law that we are accessing with that collective sense. Even toddlers get it (and that is based on actual studies).
The pre-Norman kings are generally described not as inventing and imposing laws, but, as you say, simply attempting to reflect, interpret, and enforce natural law. That is one of the reasons why pre-Norman kings were not considered to be above the law—because it is morally impossible for anyone to be above natural law.
Any attempt to legislate beyond natural law is a violation.
I also think that, tragic though the decline of religion is, morality can only decline so far because of that unconscious awareness of natural law. (It can decline without religion, but not infinitely so.)
That makes a lot of sense! I didn’t know the history behind this (and will definitely be reading up on it) but it kind of ‘clicks.’
I tend to conceptualize history as a cycle in which things are ‘good’ for a while before gradually becoming more and more corrupt, until they reach a point where the system is dismantled and everything starts fresh. The type of leadership (monarchy, democracy, etc.) doesn’t seem to matter all that much—it’s all about the quality of the people in power (and the masses they govern).
The idea of pre-Norman monarchs who weren’t considered above the law seems to conform to this view.
Yeah, there is definitely something to that cyclical notion!
On the subject, I might try “Inventing Freedom” by Daniel Hannan and “Democracy: The God That Failed” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Both books are about much more, but they both touch on that subject nicely.
"it did not tell him what to do, but it always told him what not to do."
This reminds of the dichotomy between the Golden Rule and the Silver Rule. The former is an important guide. But the latter is the only thing upon which political laws can be based. We cannot tell people exactly how nice they should be or how much money they ought to give to charity. But we can tell them what they must NOT do.
This is very true, and I think it brings up an interesting point about the origin of laws.
Eventually they become corrupted by the passing of time and their growth in scale (we can certainly see this in America today), but when they're first written down, at least ideally, they're reflections of the moral code that the people they govern have already agreed upon.
A lot of times, they have a spiritual origin (I'm thinking specifically of the way the moral code of Christianity is expressed in the laws of the United States). This is probably because the way humans have made sense of the world around them has historically been through a religious/spiritual lens, but it also kind of reminds me of Carl Jung's 'collective unconscious'—the idea that there might be some kind of universal knowledge that people tap into when they're writing these myths, where objective 'truth' can be accessed.
I think you're right to point out the Golden Rule/Silver Rule dichotomy. For one, it highlights the limitations of political laws (it was never supposed to be the government's place to tell you how to live your own life, although we can see this barrier being chipped away at today). But the limitations of government necessitates another moral compass to direct peoples' behavior in a positive manner. This used to be religion, but religions don't 'speak' to people anymore. Thus, people are without a guide, and the 'masses' are looking for a compass. This is (probably) why so many people are looking towards politics to fill the void. Of course, as we both know, politics can't and shouldn't perform this function.
In an ideal world, people would do the work to form their own moral compass (this was the whole point of this post). But there's not much that can be done about mental laziness. Who knows, though—maybe, in the absence of a clear, established belief system, people will have no choice but to start thinking for themselves again.
Very interesting thoughts.
That collective unconscious understanding of a moral code is real. It is natural law that we are accessing with that collective sense. Even toddlers get it (and that is based on actual studies).
The pre-Norman kings are generally described not as inventing and imposing laws, but, as you say, simply attempting to reflect, interpret, and enforce natural law. That is one of the reasons why pre-Norman kings were not considered to be above the law—because it is morally impossible for anyone to be above natural law.
Any attempt to legislate beyond natural law is a violation.
I also think that, tragic though the decline of religion is, morality can only decline so far because of that unconscious awareness of natural law. (It can decline without religion, but not infinitely so.)
That makes a lot of sense! I didn’t know the history behind this (and will definitely be reading up on it) but it kind of ‘clicks.’
I tend to conceptualize history as a cycle in which things are ‘good’ for a while before gradually becoming more and more corrupt, until they reach a point where the system is dismantled and everything starts fresh. The type of leadership (monarchy, democracy, etc.) doesn’t seem to matter all that much—it’s all about the quality of the people in power (and the masses they govern).
The idea of pre-Norman monarchs who weren’t considered above the law seems to conform to this view.
Yeah, there is definitely something to that cyclical notion!
On the subject, I might try “Inventing Freedom” by Daniel Hannan and “Democracy: The God That Failed” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Both books are about much more, but they both touch on that subject nicely.
Those books look interesting—definitely added to my reading list. Thanks!
The Hoppe one flipped me to anarchism. I was close at that point, but Hoppe gave me the last push.