Even the Pagans knew Morality wasn't up to Consensus

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.

- Cicero

Right wingers and Christians are two groups of folk who are almost universally derided for daring to suggest that there is something such as the Natural Law. They are scorned when asserting that some things are congruent with nature and others less so, if at all. They are mocked because of the idea they espouse which says that certain acts are really right, and others really wrong. In the end, they are scolded for the presumably arrogant belief that our laws must reflect this, because, of course, nothing is right on its own terms and how dare anyone try to force their morality on another. Simple and stupid consensus will take care of that.

So imagine the joy which one put upon by society in such a manner might have when they discover an old pagan who says exactly what they do. A pagan who speaks of virtue and discipline as though they were ideals to strive for rather than ancient old abstractions of which some people simply will not let go. A pagan who insists there is a God who is the source of all of our law, and that we must adhere to the commands of that being. In the end, Cicero teaches, our laws must reflect that eternal and unchanging law on which any and all good laws are based.

Right Reason is that which is in league with nature and nature's God. All that we do which is to be of any good use must reflect that sense. When we do that, we create justice on Earth. When we do not, when we do as we please with no regard for ultimate and final right and wrong, we invite chaos and anarchy. To quote Cicero once more:

...if the principle of justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decision of judges, then justice would sanction robbery and adultery and the forging of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace. (For if a human law)...can make Justice out of injustice, can it not also make good out of bad?

Indeed it can. It is good to hear such a question voiced by someone not, ahem, tainted by modern religion. Those who dismiss religious sentiment and insist that it cannot be applied to lawmaking need a good dose of the old Roman orator if they are to see things in the right light. For Christianity has no hold on the eternal. The truth and beauty of that belongs to all who are willing to seek it. Our laws would be truer and more beautiful as well, should we create them justly.

This One is Headed to the Supreme Court

A federal court in California has ruled that police don't need a warrant to place a GPS on the car of someone suspected of wrongdoing. This comes about a month after a different federal court in Washington DC said that the authorities should get a warrant before doing such a thing. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

Those against the GPS call the move in California 'Orwellian'. Those in favor say that it's no different than tailing a suspect, and a whole lot cheaper. What to do, what to do?

We have to go with the Orwellian angle on this one. There's nothing wrong with making the job of the police relatively difficult. If that involves a slower pace in ferreting out the evildoers, then so be it. It strikes us that if the cops have enough evidence to place a GPS they ought to have enough that a reasonable judge would issue a warrant. If all they have on a guy (or a gal; women can be criminals too!) is enough to, ahem, warrant a tail, then that's what they have to do.

In the end, the folks who work for justice ought to have to work harder to achieve their ends relative to most other jobs out in the world. Not merely to keep them honest, but to ensure all the more that we are truly only pursuing the guilty. If we are indeed innocent until proven otherwise then the law has to lean a bit in our favor. Call it insurance against overeagerness, and a necessary adjunct to our pursuit of lawbreakers.

Having said that, however, we would argue that punishments ought to lean towards being harsh. But that question we'll leave for another time.

Legislating Morals

It is often said, when discussing certain social issues, that we cannot legislate morals. Do you know the right response to that question?

In a word, poppycock. There is a better word, to be sure, but decorum will not allow its use here.

We can and we must legislate morals. Further, every decision ever made by every legislature, parliament, congress, diet, knesset, or whatever else you want to call it, was an action predicated on a moral decision. Making us drive on the right side of the street is based on the moral axiom that we require order. Forcing parents to send their kids to school, let alone feed and clothe them, is a moral choice that parents are obliged to do that for their progeny. Trying to force health care down our throats is a moral decision by the government that we need it, however erroneously felt.

We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances.