Feelings

I think one of the biggest mistakes we make today is the emphasis on feelings over reason. We ignore that feelings cannot be measured, but reason can.

I cannot know the intensity or trustworthiness of what you feel, nor you, me. We simply feel what we feel; in that sense mere feelings are amoral. We can't judge them. They just are what they are.

Yet we can judge reason through logic. We can look at how others act and make judgments for or against it. You might feel justified in lifting that hundred from your brother's wallet, but I can still assert quite rightly that you're stealing. Perhaps you, ahem, feel he owes it to you. Well then, make your case, that I might be able to see that you have one. Yet if all you've got is the feeling you deserved that cash, you need to give it back and seek forgiveness. 

I believe our modern progressive friends trumpet feelings over reason exactly because feelings left to themselves avoid larceny and any other violations of right, wrong, or general propriety. They want to feel however they want to feel (and act on that) without recrimination.

Just don't tell them how you feel about it. Yes, I'm being snarky.

Cicero makes a point

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 per se 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.