Justice and Legitimacy

Philosophos: Can a legitimate government be unjust?

Nomodiphas: Of course. We can choose and have chosen many bad governments that do not make and enforce just laws. These are legitimate because we have chosen them, but they are not just. In contrast to this we can have just governments that are not legitimate; governments that impose themselves by force on us, but who rule justly.

According to the early Biblical account the human race originated with no human government, in a state of complete liberty and equality. This liberty and equality was not complete moral license, rather there were two types of laws. The first was a created, specific law given for the benefit of humanity, the second an uncreated, eternal law that functions as the basis of justice—the natural law.

The specific command was to not eat from one specific tree. It was a simple prohibition, not a positive command that necessitated work. In the midst of a garden full of vegetation, this was one of the simplest laws that mankind was ever told to follow. This law was not an arbitrary decree given by God, legitimated through his omnipotence; rather God was able to give this law because the first people tacitly consented to obey God’s commands by freely choosing to live in the garden. If the first people did not want to obey his commands they were free to leave the garden and live any place in the largely unoccupied world. This was a specific law, created in time, it was not eternal, it would not be valid in every possible universe, and it applied only to the two citizens of the garden for a finite period of time. That decree was legitimate because it was freely consented to by those who received it.

The other type of law is that of eternal justice. It is do not murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. There is evidence of this law immediately as well. In the second generation the bible mentions two brothers, Cain and Abel. After an unknown period of time “Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.” God punished Cain by cursing the ground that he worked and made him “a fugitive and a wonderer on the earth.” At this point in time the Bible has made no mention of a human government or any laws. If justice were nothing more than the law, then Cain’s action would not have been wrong and would not have merited punishment. However justice does not require law. As the Apostle Paul said in his letter to the Romans, “sin was indeed in the world before the law.” Justice exists outside of any government, law, and without the consent of the people, whereas legitimacy is rooted in the consent of the people. Just laws do not require the consent of the people for their validity, but procedural or administrative laws (laws that are needed to order a society, but exist beyond the realm of justice) do require consent.

Philosophos: Ok, so justice and legitimacy are two different things, I would assume that the best government is both just and legitimate. Further I think you would agree with me that any form of government can be both legitimate and just, but it is more difficult for some forms to be these things and that is why we prefer some forms over others.

Nomodiphas: Agreed.

The Nature of Man

Philosophos: Good thoughts, we’ll continue discussing some of these questions later on. But right now we need to know the nature of man to determine how government should treat men. What do we know about man?

Nomodiphas: Well, we know that man is unique. We know that man is a distinct part of creation. God made man in His own image and breathed His life into man, further God created man to rule over all creation—to live distinct from it and above it.

Philosophos: You are relying on the Bible’s account of man’s origins to argue your point, is this premise accepted by all?

Nomodiphas: No, most tribal religions, the pantheistic religions of the east, evolutionists, and environmentalists are all false in that they treat man the same as any other part of creation. They don’t grasp that man is distinct or unique in any way. In their opinion man is just a part of a greater whole. Either he is a part of the world or a part of some god. There is nothing above man and nothing below man. This seems to lead to political systems where individual men are expendable for the greater whole—whether it is human sacrifice on behalf of the tribe or forced collectivization on behalf of the state.

Philosophos: So when men are viewed as undifferentiated parts of a whole, rather than as unique and distinct individuals, political systems reflect those values and use individual men on behalf of the whole. You cite tribal sacrifices as well as the collectivization policies of communistic societies as evidence. Let’s get to the root of this, when man is viewed as a part of some greater whole what about man’s nature is being attacked?

Nomodiphas: I think you could say man’s value?

Philosophos: Really?

Nomodiphas: Yes, I think so. When man is viewed as equal to a tree or an animal his value is degraded to that level. We use trees for shelter. We use animals for food and tools. We, as a whole, take from these resources to improve our lives. If man has no greater value then these products we take from and is not distinct in any way from them, but rather only another part of the same environment from which we appropriate resources, then we may just as easily take and use individual men for the same reasons. This is not the truth about man; man is more valuable than his surroundings. He is distinct and an end unto himself and not to be treated as a mere means to another’s ends as we treat other plant and animal life. God tells us we are unique and have value in and of ourselves. He tells us this so that we will not abuse and exploit each other as people do when they think people have no inherent value.

Philosophos: The creation account is the basis for man’s inherent value, what else can we learn from it?

Nomodiphas: Well from it we may be confident that man has free will. God made man in His image. God is free and has free will, it follows that man has both as well. God gave the first man and woman a command to follow. The command, along with its breaking and punishment, assumes that man was free to obey or disobey and that his disobedience was in fact freely willed. Further we know that mankind was equal. God gave Adam authority over animals and plants but not over people. All people were created in God’s image so all are equal.

Philosophos: Ok, so the creation of humankind established people’s value, equality, and free will. How does this apply to governments?

Nomodiphas: Governments must respect this fact and treat people as free and equal ends rather than means. If even one person can be used as a means to a noble end, then the value of human life becomes arbitrary. And if value is arbitrary morality is dead. One cannot come up with an equation like X number of people is equal to a Y quantum of freedom. If one person can be used to bring justice or happiness to a hundred, could not one hundred be used for a thousand? Would this not justify Joseph Stalin’s assertion that it was just to execute and lock up millions in the gulag system because the end result would be a utopian socialist state? He believed that the idea of a socialist state was more valuable than people. If any idea is given more weight than the value of people then it would be completely just to use as many people as possible in any way in order to reach that goal. However, the earth is material. Everything and every system on it will cease to exist at some point. If the soul is immortal, as Jesus and other New Testament writers asserted, then, because of their infinite nature, any given person is of more value than any finite system, even if that system contains a noble end. So governments may not treat people as mere means to some grand end, but rather must treat people valuable ends in themselves.

Next, because people have value, are naturally free, and have a free will the only legitimate government is one based on consent. Since all are equal there is no person who is born above others with a natural right to rule over them. Since specific governmental authority is not natural then it is true as Rousseau said that “civil association is the most voluntary of all acts,” and only authority freely chosen out of a place of natural freedom is legitimate. After Noah God instated governments to enforce justice and we are to live under the rule of governments, but no particular man has a divine right to rule. Because all men are free and equal, only their consent creates legitimate governments.

Self Governance

Philosophos: Well I do not think giving all the power to the people is the solution either. The people are too easily led astray. The people too often do not want what is best for them and in a democracy they get what they want. The people often want to satisfy their passions and they have no patience for anyone who tells them otherwise. Let us remember it was a democracy that judicially murdered Socrates. There needs to be a way to give people what is best for them even when they do not know their best interest or want what is best for themselves. Those that are wisest and virtuous should rule. With the power spread out between them it will have a less corrupting effect (our Constitution is a great model of this). But while ruling they must try to encourage self government for self government is far more effective at protecting our rights and liberty than even the best external government.

Internal or self governance is motivated by love. I choose to be a good friend out of love, not fear. External government is motivated by fear—one chooses not to steal for fear of being caught and punished. Of the two, love is much stronger. The government operates with force; it is an example of external government. The family operates by love; it is an example of internal government. The external government should not involve itself in the affairs of internal governments (except to encourage self governance), for it corrupts them. For example when the government involves itself in enforcing contracts made within a marriage, it offsets the natural balance, undermines the family’s function, and brings fear into a love relationship.

The reason that the government should promote self governance is that the less self governance there is the more external governance is needed to impose its will on the people in order to restrain their passions. If people are self governed the external government needs not interfere as often to maintain order. However, if the people are not self governed the external government is required to intervene more to keep order. The more external government that is needed, the more power the government is required to take from the people.

For example, imagine a man that works hard, is temperate in food and drink, and controls his temper. The government need not bother him at all for he governs himself. He may live freely in this self governance. On the contrary think of a man who is given over to his passions. He refuses to work and instead gives himself over to food and drink. He is carnal with many women and prone to violent outbursts against his fellow man. The government must try to restrain the effects of his anger (by punishing him with fines or prison time), find a way to care for his many bastard children (either through welfare: taking from others against their will or child support: taking from him against his will—both ways are an infringement of liberty), and try to find a way to motivate him to work and stay sober (either by court order or with some sort of mandate). In order to protect those around him it must severely curtail his liberty.

Now think of a society filled with many of the first man. That society will live freely with little governmental interference. From time to time it might be asked to act as an impartial judge or enforce a contact, but for the most part self regulated men are capable of independently running their affairs. If society is filled with the second man, the people will need to be treated like children of the state. The government will be required to take much of their freedom from them in order to restrain them and protect the rights of others. Many will be locked up to keep them from violence. And since these people don’t work and provide for their children, the government will unjustly take from those who do work. Soon no one is able to care for themselves and all become wards of the state. This is a view of the modern welfare state. Or the government can force men to work against their will in Gulag type institutions. Either way man loses much freedom when he does not govern himself and voluntarily choose to live according to God’s moral law.

Not only do the people lose liberty when they fail to govern themselves and force the external government to infringe on their liberty in order to keep order, but because the government must take more power to maintain order it is more likely that this increased power will corrupt those that rule and turn the republic into an oligarchy. On the flipside if the government fails to curtail liberty in order to restrain the people’s passions and maintain order, then anarchy will ensue and a strong man, some sort of tyrant, will rise up to restore order. Hobbes was right that in the midst of chaos we will accept a restraint in liberty from a tyrant in return for order. History shows us that this principle is true. Napoleon was welcomed because he ended the chaos of the reign of terror. Lenin came to power not by instigating the Russian Revolution, but by restraining it. In order for government to have any form of stability the people must be self governed.

The best example of a republic that encouraged self government was the government that existed before the monarchy in Israel. In that case God laid out a system of government within the Law to Moses. As we know, good laws must always begin with God’s revelation. The fear of God is the beginning of all knowledge. Without a Godly foundation the structure will be unsound.

Within the framework of this law leaders were picked by the community to act as judges and to administer the law. This seems to be the best possible system. God gave them His law in order to prevent the people from legislating unwise laws. But even the wisest of all law is useless without just, impartial judges to interpret it. For this reason Moses told the Hebrew people that every town was to contain judges and officials that would render just decisions for the people. The writings of Moses instructed the judges to not distort justice or show partiality and not to accept bribes. This is of course easier in principle than in application, so Moses instituted popular involvement in the choosing of judges to secure the judicial system from abuses. The fact that these individuals were chosen by the people and not appointed by the king, or holding their position based off of wealth or hereditary nobility, held them accountable. If judges failed to act justly the people could simply appoint another. Further, this power to interpret the law was diffused to a number of men through localities so that no man gained enough power to be able to do great harm. Finally, this system encouraged involvement. The community was made responsible for the enforcement of justice. This required that the people act as citizens, and not subjects, being active and aware of their situation, rather than accepting a decision or decree from a distant ruler above them.

This was the freest any people could to be. In the Book of Judges it says that in that period ‘everyone did what was best in his own eyes.’ This was not license to act in any way the people saw fit. The Hebrew nation had a law code, written by Moses, which was known by all the people. Everyone had the law and from the law governed themselves in accordance to the law’s provisions. In times of disagreement the people chose impartial judges to rule on infringements of this law code. This was the ideal system. Each person did what was right, not from external pressure of the government, but wisely regulated themselves from a place of complete liberty. Without giving away an ounce of their natural liberty they gained all the benefits of a government. The people themselves interpreted the law, settled disputes, and administered justice. The Law of Moses served the function that Locke said good law should. Locke wrote that:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom . . . where there is no law, there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is not law; but freedom is not, as we are told: a liberty for every man to do what he lists—for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?

The Law of Moses freed the Hebrew people from fear: the fear of arbitrary violence, the fear of theft, and the fear of fraud among other things. By taking away fear this system made them freer than they would be in the state of nature. Freedom is not being able to do whatever one pleases, because with no limits the freedom of one can infringe on the freedom of another. If you have the liberty to harm me as you please, I live without the liberty of being free of fear. Under the system that Moses established the Hebrew people could do as they pleased under the freedom and protection of the law.

How does that system compare with the system we have in place today?

Nomodiphas: A republic, ruled by the wise and vitreous, with a written law code, based in God’s law that is elected and rules locally, and that encourages self government—how does it compare with our current system? Well, right now there is a lack of power at the local level. The most important decisions are made at the federal level—most of these decisions are in turn made by an unelected bureaucracy. This works against accountability. Giving power back to the local level could encourage the involvement needed to make our system work.

The biggest problem that I see in our system though is the lack of self government. A weak national government can exist only as long as people basically respect and enforce the laws amongst themselves. If they fail to do this a stronger national government is needed to restrain them and prevent anarchy. Right now we lack the requisite self government. Left to themselves most people do not do what is right and obey the laws; they only do what is right because of threats and fear of punishment. As people become less and less self governed the government must invade more and more of their lives to maintain order and promote justice, which in turns limits their freedom. But then again how can government encourage self government among people who desire to do evil? Maybe what we need the most is a change in culture. Can the government change culture? Should the government change culture? Yes and yes. Though the government does not completely control culture, it influences it to a great degree. I think the government’s laissez-faire (well, sometimes even encouraging) approach to illicit sex has, to an enormous degree, created the permissive sexual culture in which immorality is expected and even encouraged. This is the type of lawlessness the government is commissioned to restrain, for in failing to restrain it anarchy ensues.

The Form of Government

Philosophos: The next issue we must resolve is the form that government should take . . . but before we conclude what form is best, let us first discuss the possible forms of government. What forms may a government take?

Nomodiphas: There are three basic structures a government may take: rule by one, rule by some, or rule by all.

Philosophos: And what do we call each of these systems?

Nomodiphas: We call the rule by one a monarchy, the rule by some a republic, and the rule by all a democracy.

Philosophos: And is that all there is? Can we break these terms down further?

Nomodiphas: Of course, there are numerous differences and types within each form. You may have a constitutional monarchy, an absolute monarchy, a monarch who functions as an executive with a parliamentary legislative branch—do you want me to go on?

Philosophos: No, let me rephrase my question. The three forms you gave: monarchy, republic, and democracy are the terms we use when government is functioning well. Is there not a flipside to each system? Can we not have the rule by some that is not a republic or the rule of all that is not a democracy?

Nomodiphas: Yes, of course. The corrupt rule of one we call a tyranny, the corrupt rule of a few we call an oligarchy, and when the rule of all is corrupted we call it anarchy.

Philosophos: So no form of government is always good?

Nomodiphas: Correct. If the monarch is a good man, monarchy will be a good system. If the wise and virtuous few rule, a republican form of government will be good. If the people are civic minded, wise, and involved democracy will work well. But, if the monarch is selfish, arbitrary, and cruel he will tyrannize the people. If the few that rule are foolish and haughty they will oppress the people in an oligarchy. And if the people are corrupted and rule, there will be anarchy.

Philosophos: So if each system has the potential for both good and evil how can we decide on a best system?

Nomodiphas: If one had all wisdom and was all good, it would be best to give that one all power to rule. That would be the best form of government and we will in fact have that form of government during Christ’s millennial reign. As for humans the problem is that no man is all good or has all knowledge. As far as a monarchy goes there seems to be some inherent flaw in it. It is too much power for one individual to hold alone. The worst men in history have been those who control all power. Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Napoleon, Louis XIV, the pharaohs, the Caesars, the Tsars, Lenin, Stalin—because they held all power they were able to do an incredible amount of damage to their countries and people. I cannot think of any person who seized all power and actually used it on behalf of the people. This last century is full of broken promises by men like Castro and I guarantee people who put their trust in men like him or Chavez will be let down.

Besides the problem of giving monarchical power to evil men, monarchical power seems to corrupt good men. Think of King David. He was a man after God’s own heart, Israel’s ideal king anointed to be king by God’s prophet Samuel. Despite being such a good man, he too misused his power. He had an affair with one of his men’s wives and had the man killed in order to cover up the ensuing pregnancy. In fact, well before this debacle the prophet Samuel warned the Israelites about the innate problems contained within the very institution of monarchy. He said:

These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.

Samuel painted a very bleak picture of monarchy. As the Hebrew nation moved from self government to a system of monarchy, they would lose all liberty and cease to be citizens and at once become subjects, or better yet, slaves of the king. Despite this stern warning “the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, “No! but we are determined to have a king over us.” This was the social contract in practice. The people gathered together as a whole and relinquished their liberty to an artificial sovereign of their creation. Though this system was not the most advantageous it was legitimate because it was freely willed from a place of natural freedom.

Philosophos: Yes, monarchy has its failings for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nomodiphas: Then what is the solution?

Different Types of Law

Nomodiphas: I have an objection. I don’t think it is possible to use the Old Testament law as a foundation or guideline to making modern laws.

Philosophos: Why do you say that?

Nomodiphas: Isn’t it obvious? The Israelite society was very different from ours. They lived in different conditions and times and most importantly they were God’s chosen people. They made a covenant with God and had a state religion. They had laws regulating diet, a ban against wearing a garment woven from two different materials, and a prohibition against sowing two different types of seed in the same field. You can’t say that these are somehow necessary laws for our society or even that there is some guiding principle behind them that we need to take into account.

Philosophos: I would not make that claim.

Nomodiphas: These provisions are either silly or unimportant. How can we take other portions of the law code serious when it is surrounded by such ridiculous stipulations?

Philosophos: Let me ask you this: are there any ridiculous or unimportant laws in your city?

Nomodiphas: I don’t know.

Philosophos: Picture a man from some remote African village who had never been to your city, in fact had never been to what we would consider a modern, car centered city. Now, this man had seen cars before, but never to the extent that exist in a city. He had seen roads before too; there is a narrow, dirt road that skirts past the outside of his village. Now, imagine yourself trying to explain to him your city’s traffic laws. Speed limits, traffic lights, one way streets, right of ways, and parking regulations: all of these laws would seem ridiculous to him. He would not be able to appreciate the function that they serve for your city. These are not moral laws in the sense that prohibitions against murder or theft are, but they are necessary nonetheless for a modern city to function. Now imagine that you wanted to discuss other laws that your city has that deal with moral issues like bribery or the administration of justice. Would you not be offended if he disregarded what you had to say about those topics and told you that because of the inclusion of such unimportant, ridiculous traffic laws your whole law code was bunk?

Nomodiphas: I can see what you are getting at.

Philosophos: On its face it appears that you are making a rational argument, but in reality it is nonsense. Who is to say that our laws prohibiting various degrees of murder or rape are insignificant or unimportant simply because we have laws that regulate parking and have different zones of speed for driving? The greater laws are not any less important because of the presence of the lesser. The lesser are needed for a functioning society. In the same way, the lesser laws of the ancient Hebrew people were needed for their society to function in a mundane, day to day way. The inclusion of lesser laws does not take away from the greater ones. And just as we can differentiate between lesser and greater laws (or moral and functional laws) so too we can differentiate between the laws that constitute moral absolutes and those that merely ensured a functioning society for the ancient Israelites. And before you doubt the ancient Israeli law code, consider the results that it produced. The Israelites went from being slaves to a bonafide superpower after adopting this law code.

Nomodiphas: How do we tell the difference between these types of laws?

Philosophos: You tell me that, how do we know that murder is taken much more serious than traffic violations?

Nomodiphas: You go to prison for life for murder, but only get a small fine for a traffic violation.

Philosophos: True, most of the time the type of penalty tells us what type of law something is. For example in the Law of Moses there is no punishment listed for violations of health codes, but capital punishment is called for in certain sex crimes and in homicide. However, punishments are also proscribed for violations of religious matters (like working on the Sabbath). So we cannot look just to the punishments, we must also use a bit of common sense. Laws that deal with Israel’s religion, though they may be wise, are not mandatory for us to follow. These laws were rooted in the special relationship that Israel had with God and for that reason do not apply to other societies (we will talk more about this later). Administrational laws without punishment and religious laws do no apply to us. But laws that deal with matters of justice (property, civil law, criminal, etc) are applicable to us, for justice does not change.

Nomodiphas: What about the Apostle Paul?

Philosophos: What about him?

Nomodiphas: Didn’t he teach that the Christ ushered in a new law, a law of mercy, which replaced the Law of Moses?

Philosophos: Why yes He did. The Law of Moses emphasized God’s justice, the Law of Christ emphasizes God’s mercy. God was merciful even before Christ and in the same way continues to be just now. God is both merciful and just and both before and after Christ God has asked those of us who follow Him to be both merciful and just.

The Law of Moses was never a means to salvation, for no man could fulfill it. We have always been saved by grace, through faith. As we know the church as a different role to play than Israel. We are asked to emphasize God’s mercy. But this does not mean that we are not asked to live justly as well. It is true that in living justly we are not bound to obey the whole of the Law of Moses, for much of it was religious or cultural in nature, but we are to continue to obey God’s moral law.

The nature of justice has not changed. What is right or wrong was so for Adam and will continue until the last man. Cain knew it was wrong to murder Abel, God repeated this fact to Noah, it was in the Law of Moses, and Jesus affirmed this. Murder, because it is a part of God’s law has not changed. We still must not murder. Though the parts of the Law of Moses that deal with religious or administrative issues may be done away with. The Law of Moses contains the whole of the God’s moral law (or the natural law). Though much of God’s laws are repeated elsewhere in the scriptures, they are listed completely in the Law of Moses, which is why this is our best source.

Speaking of justice, justice is not a function of power. Leibniz said ‘it is agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question of whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just.’ If justice changes whenever God decides that it must, why do we praise God for being just? If justice is a function of power, then it is part of God’s nature and not His character, and it seems unnecessary that multiple times in the Bible God is praised for His justice. Why praise Him for being who He is, if everything He does is just, simply because He did it? God is praised for being just for it is a choice that He makes. God loves justice; it is something in which He Himself says He takes pleasure. If justice is whatever God wills, then justice is merely a function of power—whoever has the most power would be the most just, but this is contrary to experience.

Nomodiphas: So the Law of Moses contains the whole of the law of nature. However it also contains a number of administrative and religious laws. The law of nature is unchanging and is God’s explanation of justice to man. It is to apply to all societies in all times, but cultural and administrative laws are not required for all societies. Every society may make up these types of rules as they see fit. We can and should differentiate between these types of laws. I understand why we must follow just laws, but why must we follow laws that exist beyond the realm of justice?

Philosophos: Just laws are universal and apply to all peoples at all times, regardless of consent. Additional laws (like administrative laws) require consent. People come together and cede some of their rights in order to better protect their liberty. That is how governments are formed. It is from this freely willed consent that government derives its power. Specific, particular laws gain legitimacy when made by the government that the people have given some of their rights to. Governments have a lot of freedom in making administrative laws: they simply must first have the consent of the people and second, be sure their administrative laws are not unjust.

For example a right to a jury trial and the right to appeal a case are examples of just, but unnecessary procedural laws. They are just because they increase the likelihood that justice will be done in every case. An administrative law that said women have no right to call witnesses in their defense would be unjust because it would decrease the likelihood that justice would be done in a given case. So you see procedural laws can at times be just or unjust in regards to how they further substantive just results. However, most procedural laws are simply neutral for many decisions are arbitrary. We need to decide what side of the road we should all drive on. Justice doesn’t require one side over the other, so we simply decide. This is in no way related to justice, it must be decided one way or the other, but neither way is better, it simply must be decided by a legitimate government (one that rules by the consent of the people).

Remember, justice exists independent of the people, but administrative laws are only legitimate so long as they are not unjust (they need not be proactively just, but rather only not unjust) and consented to by the people.

The Need for a Revelation of Moral Truth: God's Revelation of Moral Truth

Nomodiphas: Ok, I think you’ve gone too far. There have been way too many abuses in the past for this to even be plausible. How much harm and evil have been done in the name of God? I think of Medieval Europe and how the clergy subjugated the laity to their arbitrary rules by claiming that only they knew God’s will. How many cults have been started because someone claims to have a special revelation from God?

Philosophos: I won’t argue with these facts, but I need to clarify something. I am not talking about God’s specific revelation to individuals; I am talking about God’s general revelation to all mankind. I believe God does talk to individuals, however I believe what He says to them cannot be forced upon others for that is a recipe for abuse. If only one man is able to hear from God it is only a matter of time till God conveniently tells them that other people are meant to serve him or something of that nature. We see this type of abuse by shaman and other types of tribal leaders as well as modern cultic leaders. These ‘divine’ revelations tell men like Joseph Smith that they are allowed multiple wives, including underage relatives. I think it was probably a similar situation with David Koresh. Individualized revelation, though it does occur, cannot serve as a foundation for law because there is too much opportunity for abuse. Because the information from which man reasons is false and incomplete and because man’s unnatural environment corrupts his naturally good subjective reactions to good and evil and because individualized revelation is subject to abuse, God, in His mercy, revealed all the truth that man needs to know in His Word. It is only this general revelation that can serve as a foundation to laws.

Nomodiphas: Ok, I agree with you that rationalism and subjectivism fail and that individualized revelation produces too much abuse to be a sound foundation for laws, however even with a general revelation is there not potential for abuse in the way people interpret it?

Philosophos: Of course there is and that is why no one person should be put in a place where they are viewed as having the only or authoritative interpretation. One reason the medieval church was able to rule the people as they did is because people did not have access to the Bible. They had no way of knowing what God said, so they had no way to judge the validity of the clergy’s teaching. We are to all have access to God’s Word and each one of us is to read it and test the words of every man according to the standard of God’s Word. We are to not defer to the interpretation of another, but to read and study the Word on our own and ask God to interpret it for us. When each person knows the Word it prevents abuse from those claiming to have some special revelation or authoritative interpretation.

Consider how Moses told the Israelites to treat God’s Word. In Deuteronomy chapter 11 he instructed them to ‘put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand . . . teach them to your children talking about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Write them on the doorpost of your house and on your gates.’ With a working knowledge of God’s Word it would be impossible for a ruler or priest to manipulate it on behalf of a particular interest. It is true that much evil has been done in the name of God. This happened when a group of men set themselves and their institution (the medieval Catholic Church) up to be the sole interpreter of God’s Word. These men used their power as sole interpreters of the Bible to rule much of Europe (their ruler, the ‘heir of Peter,’ commanded armies that rivaled any King’s) and their institution became very wealthy in the process, controlling up to 1/3 of the continent and owning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of serfs.

This institution knew that if people had access to the Bible they would quickly recognize how far their institution (which they claimed to be the one, true church) had strayed from the truth. So these powerful men persecuted anyone who questioned them, claimed to have a different interpretation then them, or simply wanted to study the Bible on their own. In order that their despotism could continue unchallenged, men and women were burned at the stake simply for wanting to read God’s word on their own. The church burned one of its priests, John Hus, at the stake for the crime of preaching in the vernacular and making a translation of the Bible for the laity. This establishment launched a number of crusades in Southern France against men and women who desired to sing hymns and discuss God’s Word out of a sanctioned building. People were slaughtered by the millions over the centuries for the transgression of reading the Bible on their own and coming to conclusions independent of the organization that called itself the universal church.

So, yes, quite a bit of evil and abuse resulted from a misinterpretation of the Bible. But this only occurred because the people were repressed and unable to compare the doctrines of the church against God’s Word (as the Apostle Paul himself instructed all believers to do). Now we all have access to God’s Word so there is far less potential for abuse through misinterpretation. All that is required is that people remain vigilant and test everything that they read or hear against God’s Word.

We have already talked about why the rule of law is preferable to a rule by men. Men can be greedy or arbitrary in ruling. If men do this while ruling, won’t they act the same way when they make laws?

Nomodiphas: Well, if a man is subjugated to his own laws that will restrain him to some degree, but he will always find ways around them. It seems like the dangers present in a rule by man system persist in a rule by law system, albeit to a lesser degree.

Philosophos: Exactly. I think there are two main reasons why God revealed the moral law to us. The first is that, left to our own devices, we are unable to discern it. The second was to prevent abusive rule.

The Godly principles laid out by God Himself in His Holy Word are to be the foundations for our laws and government. We would be wise to look to tradition to see how these laws have best been applied in the past, so that we may see how we can best apply them to our society. We will be unable to do this perfectly, but as long as we keep God’s revealed Truth as the basis for our actions policies we will not stray too far.

Nomodiphas: What about things that Scripture does not talk about?

Philosophos: Are there any black-and-white issues that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture? Is slavery a sin? Is dealing crack a sin? Is polygamy a sin? I think we would agree that these are categorically black-and-white, although Scripture lacks an express prohibition. But even where Scripture does provide a black-and-white rule, there remains tremendous ambiguity as to its application. Exactly what actions constitute "sexual immorality" or "adultery"? If I borrow my neighbor's lawnmower and don't return it for three weeks, does this constitute "theft"? If I leave the lights on and the faucet running in my utilities-included apartment, does that constitute "theft"?

My point is that even the simplest black-and-white rule in Scripture is too complex to be understood on its face. The laws given by Moses are merely signposts pointing toward God's values—specifically the law states the outer boundaries of behavior that reflect God’s value. And it is up to us to read the signposts together, seek His heart together, and follow His Spirit together in becoming more like Him. As we embody His values and together seek out his Truth we will be able to zoom-in and discern the shades among the seemingly gray soup of life.

We are always looking for precise rules. When X, do Y, or when A, do B etc. But if life is reduced to simply recognizing the situation and applying the appropriate rule there is no need to interact or relate with God—and relation with God is our reason for existence. The Bible does not give us mere rules; it gives us a glimpse into God’s heart. The Law of Moses shows us the things God values. It is from an understanding of these values, especially the value of justice, that we should base our system of government.

Nomodiphas: Isn’t there a worry that if we claim to have the one correct notion of justice that we will be accessed of imposing our morality on others?

Philosophos: This idea of imposing your morality, your view of justice on another presupposes that there is no absolute notion of justice or morality, just a collection of views and opinions that we should all be free to follow. It presupposes that there is not a single set of principles that a good/healthy/just society or individual should be structured around. But there are universal laws in nature and math, why wouldn’t there be universal laws in ethics as well? Secondly, every government imposes some form of justice on its citizens. No nation has ever existed where people are allowed to do whatever they please. If the government must impose some form of justice, wouldn’t it be best if we imposed the correct form? In Romans 2:20 Paul wrote that ‘the law is the embodiment of knowledge and the truth.’

If we accept that there is a God and that the Bible is His revealed Word, we must accept it all, we cannot pick and choose. Either it is all inspired by God, or none of it is. For if only part of it is inspired by God by what means may we determine what is true or relevant and what is false or outdated? Further, as we have agreed upon, every other source of discovering the truth is unable to function as a basis for sound laws. Rationalism can be used to justify slavery as can tradition and subjectivism leads us to collectively wrong conclusions because we share the same unnatural environment. Descartes understood well that if the basis for your knowledge is unsound all the wisdom and knowledge you gain that is built from that base will be untrustworthy. We have the Truth and all we come to know must be based upon it. Justice exists outside of all men and opinion, good government comes into agreement with it. Because we have the Truth it is our duty to declare it and reform the government so that it comes into agreement with the Truth.

A Need for a Revelation of Moral Truth, Part Three: The Failure of Rationalism

Philosophos: Agreed, then what of rationalism?

Nomodiphas: Well, since you shot down my argument about subjectivism, I would have to say that the type of truth that best serves as a foundation for good laws is found through the use of man’s reason.

Philosophos: And why do you say that?

Nomodiphas: I think truth can be divided into three categories. There is subjective truth. This type of truth is temporal and individualized. Because, as you say, people as a whole can reach collectively bad conclusions, it cannot serve as the basis for law. In contrast to subjective truth there is empirical truth. This type of truth, when applied to the natural world, is absolute and transcendent of all individuals—gravity is real no matter what one feels or thinks about it. But when applied to the actions and customs of men this truth becomes temporal and subject to change with time and environment. It cannot serve as a steady basis for laws. Besides it seems ill equipped to deal with laws. The last type of truth is rational truth. It is eternal and absolute. It is the field in which the truth of math exists. The fact that 2+2=4 is an eternal truth. It will not change with time or conditions. Further it is absolute and does not change from individual to individual. It is true no matter what one thinks. It seems that law should belong to this field of truth—unchanging and above the opinions of men.

Philosophos: I agree with you on that point. Law must be based on unchangeable and absolute truth. However I doubt that reason is the means by which this truth is conveyed. Why do you think that is?

Nomodiphas: I don’t know.

Philosophos: Why don’t you try an answer? In order to reason to a correct result what do you need?

Nomodiphas: Information or knowledge or some sort. For example, in mathematics in order to find the sum you need to know all the integers that are being added.

Philosophos: Correct if 2 and 2 are being added we can reason that the sum will be 4. But if we have 2+?=X. We cannot reason to the sum. We do not have enough information to come up with a concrete value for X. This is the fault I find in using rationalism as a base for discovering good laws. We do not have enough information and often we have wrong information from which we reason to incomplete or faulty conclusions.

For example I may believe that the gods require human sacrifice for the spring rains. If I believe this it is only rational to sacrifice children, even if it costs me my kids. It is the only way to appease the gods and ensure food for the community. Or to take a modern example, I may reason that I should treat others as I want to be treated. However how I may want to be treated is a personal preference and I may wrong others by assuming they share the same preferences as me. They may ask an opinion and want criticism (about, say, a new dress), while I in that situation may want flattery. When I give them flattery, I have reached a wrong conclusion as a consequence of my incorrect knowledge. What about the death penalty? I may reason that someone who commits murder forfeits their right to live in society, but I may also validly reason that one mistake should not cost someone their life. I may reason that everyone is entitled to a second chance.

In the realm of justice people come to different opinions all the time. Math is beyond mere opining and is an example of absolute truth that is discovered through the use of reason. However, in the moral realm people validly reason to different conclusions because no one has perfect or complete information from which to reason to perfect and complete conclusions. In the realm of morals rationalism leaves us with nothing but different opinions.

Nomodiphas: What are you saying then, that the truth that is to form the basis for laws is unknowable?

Philosophos: Not at all. I am saying that men, left to their own power and devices, cannot completely and fully discover moral truth. Man’s reason is too frail, influenced too much by his passions and the information he has is too little and often erroneous. Further, man is unable to discern when the information he has is true or false. Given all this man alone cannot discern the truth that is to form the foundation for laws. There must be One who has all information from which to come to infallible conclusions. This One must be all good so that negative passions do not corrupt His reasoning process. Only this Being would be able to know the type of truth that we seek after. Luckily this Being does exist: it is God. Not only does God have the necessary information and lack the corrupting traits to know the truth of how we ought to live, but God has chosen to reveal this information to mankind in His Holy Word.

The Need for a Revalation of Moral Truth, Part Two: Empiricism

Philosophos: What of empiricism?

Nomodiphas: I am not convinced that empiricism can serve as the basis for good laws.

Philosophos: Why not?

Nomodiphas: Empiricism, as you know, is basically the observation of physical phenomena. If we observe an occurrence and the same occurrence happens the same way over and over again, then it is an empirical (or scientific) truth. If we combine certain chemicals a number of times and they produce the same compound, we can be confident that every time we combine those chemicals the same compound will be produced. We have observed the sun and stars long enough to be able to predict where constellations will be in what season and when an eclipse will occur.

Philosophos: This type of truth appears to be sound, how does it fail?

Nomodiphas: Because empiricism only deals with physical matters, it is unfit to comment on the moral realm.

Philosophos: How so?

Nomodiphas: For example, we may observe a man being murdered and be able to understand how he died, but from this observation alone we cannot say that murder is immoral. We can observe how a farmer plants crops and how they grow, but from that observation alone we cannot say that he is entitled to the fruits of his labor. We can observe the fact that men make contracts, but observation alone cannot dictate that they ought to keep their contracts. Empiricism gives us a description of how we act, but it cannot provide a proscription of how we ought to act. It may help us understand how things are, but it can give us no understanding of things should be. Empiricism provides for us a whole host of knowledge and truth but it is ill equipped to provide a foundation for good laws.

The Need for a Revelation of Moral Truth. Part One: The Failure of Subjectivism.

Philosophos: I think we’ve covered well enough why the rule of law is preferable to the rule of man (at least in times of order). But how do we make good laws?

Nomodiphas: We know that man has eternal value in that he is a creation of God. We also know that man is born in freedom with a free will. We want to do things that promote and protect the integrity of man’s value and ensure liberty.

Philosophos: How do we determine what will best protect and promote these values? We are limited in our knowledge, are we not subject to mistake?

Nomodiphas: Indeed we are—that is why we should look to tradition to see how these values were best promoted in the past.

Philosophos: But our past is littered with mistakes and we men are often unable to correctly discern between mistake and success. I think we need to take a step back here. We must first determine how we know any type of truth and from this method we will be able to determine the truth of how we should order our government and laws. What are the different ways by which we may know the truth?

Nomodiphas: Four methods come to mind: subjectivism, empiricism, rationalism, and revelation.

Philosophos: What one is best equipped to guide us in the discovery of good laws?
Nomodiphas: I’m not sure.

Philosophos: Then let’s go through these four methods one by one. As far as subjectivism is concerned what type of truth does it reveal and how does it reveal that truth?

Subjectivism

Nomodiphas: Subjectivism reveals individual truth to an individual from within the individual. It reveals personal tastes and preferences. I may like or dislike a movie or like or dislike a dessert—these truths arise from within me and are true for me alone. If I like a movie I would not say it must be true that all like that movie. I don’t reason to these conclusions, these conclusions are immediate within me. These conclusions are reactions or feelings.

Philosophos: Does subjective truth provide a good basis for laws?

Nomodiphas: In one sense yes in another way no. Subjective truth is for the individual, while laws are for a society. We don’t make different laws for every individual person and subjective truth differs from person to person. So in that sense no. But on the other hand, in many areas people tend to have the same reaction to things. People tend to feel that murder and theft are wrong and charity and courage are good. People agree with these things based on their natural reactions, they believe in them for subjective reasons. Since most people naturally agree on what is right and wrong subjective truth would seem to be a sound basis for good laws.

Philosophos: This belief of yours, that subjective truth can serve as a sound basis for laws, if I am correct assumes that people naturally hate what is bad and love what is good. And because people’s inclinations are naturally good we can base our laws off of people’s natural inclinations. These natural inclinations and feelings are not thought through, but are conclusions themselves. These conclusions are subjectively true to each individual, but most individuals agree on them so they may serve as our basis for laws. Have I understood you correctly?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: Have you ever seen a wolf?

Nomodiphas: Of course.

Philosophos: Where did you see it?

Nomodiphas: At the zoo.

Philosophos: So you have never seen a wolf in the wild?

Nomodiphas: No.

Philosophos: If you did, what would you expect the encounter to be like?

Nomodiphas: I imagine I would be frightened and I imagine the wolf would be frightened of me as well. The wolf would either attack me out of fear or run away from me due to its fear of me.

Philosophos: So this is the natural reaction of the wolf. A wolf’s natural instinct or impulse when it sees a man is to be afraid and either run away from the man or attack the man?

Nomodiphas: As far as I know, yes.

Philosophos: What about going into the pen of a wolf in the zoo, how do you imagine an encounter with that wolf would proceed?

Nomodiphas: From my end of things, it would probably be the same. I would be afraid even of a wolf born and raised in captivity. But things would be different for the wolf. The wolf, owing to its daily contact with humans, would have no fear of me. In fact, I imagine that a zoo keeper feeds the wolf a couple of times a day and the wolf would look forward to these encounters. If I came in with food the wolf would probably be excited and come to greet me, expecting me to feed it.

Philosophos: Why does the wolf act differently in these two situations? Has the wolf developed reason that has enabled it to act in spite of its natural tendencies?

Nomodiphas: I don’t think the wolf has reason by any means. The wolf still acts from impulse and instinct, it is just that those impulses have changed because of its environment.

Philosophos: So an animal’s environment can change its natural impulses?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: If the wolf from the zoo was released into the wild, what would its fate be?

Nomodiphas: I reckon the wolf would die quickly.

Philosophos: How so?

Nomodiphas: Well the wolf has been conditioned to trust humans. If a wolf encountered a human in the wild it should run away. Instead of running away a wolf raised in a zoo would probably approach a human hoping to be fed. This human may very well be a hunter and the wolf with the wrong instincts would make easy prey for him. . . . I can see what you are getting at, that we humans may have natural impulses and instincts that are good, but if we grow up in a bad environment our impulses can become wrong and serve as bad guides for determining what is right and wrong. We may like what is bad and dislike what is good; our impulses would therefore not serve as a good foundation for the law. I recognize the point you are trying to get across, but there is a big difference between wolves and men. Just because something is true for the former does not mean it follows for the latter.

Philosophos: Of course men and animals differ in many ways . . . but before we move on, let me ask you this. The zookeeper, the first time he walks into the pen to feed the wolf, how does he feel?

Nomodiphas: Probably the same way I would, scared.

Philosophos: So fear is his initial impulse?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: After some period of time, say ten years, of feeding wolves at the zoo how does he feel when he walks into the wolf pen?

Nomodiphas: Probably nothing. The job is so routine for him that he probably does it without really thinking about it.

Philosophos: So his initial impulse has changed?

Nomodiphas: I guess so.

Philosophos: So like the wolf a man’s internal impulse may change due to external factors.

Nomodiphas: Yes. But this hypothetical situation is different. The wolf was brought into a corrupted, unnatural environment—that is why his impulse changed. The same goes with the zookeeper, he realized this was an unnatural environment and that is why his impulses became unnatural.

Philosophos: So you concede that environment and external factors can change natural impulses in men.

Nomodiphas: Yes I concede that, but with a caveat: the reason the impulses change is because the environment is not natural.

Philosophos: Picture a wolf born into captivity. He is born at the zoo and for his whole life he interacts with humans within the zoo. He would know no other truth than that which was presented to him in his pen. This wolf would think that men are good because they provide for him and care for him. His environment would limit his access to truth and his corrupted and incomplete notion of the truth would in turn form his impulses. Like you say, this is an unnatural environment, but because the wolf has grown up in this environment and knows no other truth, he has no way of knowing that his environment is unnatural and that this unnatural environment has corrupted his impulses.

Don’t cut in yet, I know what you are about to say: I am still talking about wolves, but humans are different. But before you say that, imagine a child born into a zoo. Throughout his upbringing the child never once leaves the zoo. The only time he sees a wolf is when he goes into the pen to feed the wolf. The child never sees a wolf in nature and in fact is not told by the managers of the zoo that an outside world even exists where wolves operate differently. Given the child’s environment its natural impulse would not be to fear wolves, but rather to trust them or at least be ambivalent about them. True the environment the child has grown up in is not natural, but because this environment is the only thing the child has known, the child has no way of recognizing that the environment is unnatural and that this unnatural environment has in fact corrupted his impulses.

The fact is we live in an unnatural environment. We live in a world full of sin and decay and death. This is not the natural state of the world. When God created the world there was no evil and no death. Before the fall man lived in a perfect environment and because of that his impulses were perfect as well. Man had a free will that allowed him to choose contrary to his impulses or conscience, but his conscience in and of itself always directed man to the right course of action. But because of the fall of man every culture, every society on earth, is now a corrupted and unnatural environment. Every society varies in how unnatural and corrupted it is, but none of them are perfect. Because every man grows up in an unnatural environment, no man’s impulses are all good as they should naturally be—and would in fact be if men were raised in the perfect environment in which they were created to live. Further, because all we know is the unnatural environment we have grown up in, we have no way of knowing by impulse alone what impulses are right and which ones are wrong. Our false environment limits our access to the complete truth of reality in the same way the hypothetical zoo limited the child zookeeper.

We don’t have to look very hard in history to see how men’s impulses have led men to do very vile things. Murderers and molesters often have natural impulses to commit their crimes and feel no guilt over committing them.

Nomodiphas: But that it is different. Most men agree about what is right and wrong. We cannot look to just one man’s conception of what is right and wrong, we must look to the majority’s conception of right and wrong if we are to use subjective truth as the basis of our laws.

Philosophos: Because we grow up in the same unnatural environment we often are blinded by the same falsehoods. It many places it is the cultural norm for men to beat their wives. Slavery has been accepted in our society in the past. What about child sacrifice? It existed because a group of people came together and thought it was the best thing to do.

Nomodiphas: Well those people were lied to by their priests. The people who controlled information did not give them the whole of the truth. If they had known how foolish it was, they would not have killed their children.

Philosophos: So true, but because their information was limited they had no way of knowing that the information they were getting was false and the beliefs they formed from their misinformation were wrong as well. How many people today think that abortion is fine simply because the people who largely control the information on the subject (in this case the media) tell them that it is an all right thing to do? People in history who have done heinous things like child sacrifice thought they were taking the right course of action because they had been conditioned by their society to believe and feel that it was the right thing to do. For many it is easy to point mistakes in other societies but hard to do find them in our own society. But do you think our society is somehow exempt from mistakes? If we can point out evil things that people collectively did in the past without recognizing the wrongness of their actions because they had been conditioned to do them, why would we think we are somehow different and that we somehow are not conditioned into doing evil things and that we are not molded by our environment to the point that we don’t even recognize the wrongness of some of our actions?

This is why subjective truth fails to be an adequate foundation for lawmaking. Societies as a whole have been and continue to be corrupted by their environment. We all live in an unnatural environment with limited access to information. Our natural impulses may very well be all good, but because of our unnatural environment our impulses have been corrupted. Because these impulses are wrong we cannot use them as a basis from which to make laws. When people have done this in the past it has led to disastrous results and we will do so again if we allow them. Response?

Nomodiphas: None, I concede. Let’s move on.