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.