By Paul Kokoski
The Western world is increasingly succumbing to the prejudice of “political correctness”.
More and more we live in a time and situation where pluralism and tolerance are irreconcilable with absolute truth, the highest values. Laws are constantly being changed or newly introduced in order to satisfy the will of citizens in lieu of and without respect for the “natural moral law”. This can only lead to anarchy.
It is not possible here to present philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Nonetheless, by way of simple logic, when we speak of something like the world in terms of its richness or plurality we also affirm the existence of the world; the “many” presupposes the “one”. By similar arguments one can deduce that there must also be universal concepts of “being’, “truth”and “good”.
The universal good cannot be something ambiguous without also being relative. If it is relative one might justifiably speak, as did Heinrich Himmler, of the altruistic morals of the Nazi regime which is nonsense. The very fact that we discuss the common good proves that a criterion for the “good” ought to exist. We see that virtually all families accept as “good” the concepts of fidelity, gratitude, honesty while viewing acts of betrayal, ingratitude, falsehood as bad. It is clear then that a universal approach toward good and evil is necessary.
For the relativist, however, there is only tolerance. But why should tolerance count for anything unless it has as its foundation some other value. Such a tolerance that is “blind” ends up becoming a form of intolerance for that which actually gives tolerance its true value: convictions. Similarly, one’s convictions would have no value unless they were oriented toward a higher good. Upon this reference to truth is based the dignity of the human person.
The relativist admits to no supreme criterion that would allow him to distinguish between a good and bad conscience. For him, individual and societal actions are subject only to free will. The result is anarchy – the law of the jungle – which is no law at all. Domination and manipulation become the rule. In the 20th century we have seen two World Wars and the proliferation of terrorism. We are also witnessing the growing acceptance of evils such as contraception, in-vitro fertilization, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Such tyranny – man’s inhumanity to man – is the inevitable result when there is no lawful consensus regarding the true nature of the human being.
Plato has already said that God alone has supreme authority over man. Christ also confirmed to Pilate: “you would have no power over me unless it had been given to you from above” (Jn 19,11). Both the limits and legitimacy of man’s power come from God and are expressed in the natural moral law which is engraved in every human heart and established by reason. Even when that voice has been silenced by so many alternative views of life in our highly secular and materialistic world, it continues to echo in our hearts.
When a government or any democratic majority approves a law that contradicts this order, and in doing so marginalizes some resisting minority as being “fundamentalists”, it is the duty of every human being to oppose it. While claiming to be respecting of one’s freedom of choice, such lawmakers are really only leading people away from the true freedom which the natural law provides.
If the dignity of the will is to replace the dignity of the human person it will even be possible to imagine breeding slaves, by genetic manipulation, who are fully in agreement with their condition as slaves. The important distinction here is that for the relativist this is not a crime.
Is this not a time for us all, especially lawyers and politicians to reflect on the concept of the natural moral law?
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the management and staff of Dominica News Online and its parent company.
First of ,I would like to tell Mr Paul Kokoski morality is a personal thing and that is what classifies it. Whatever morals and values you hold for yourself Mr Kokoski that is fine. You have a right to decide your own morals,but you must understand, other people have their own morals and values to, which might not be in accordance with yours, and you have to accept that, and they are no lesser immoral than you.
The question is what criteria each individual uses to form his morals and values. There are many ways where people obtain their morals and values from, some get it from family, community, country of origin, and some people through examination of themselves, coming up with their own set of morals, so there are a myriad amount of ways where by individuals form their own morals and values. But the one place most people use as a basis to form their morals and values is religion, and there lies the problem When people like you Mr Kokoski who belong to some religion and have your morals based on your religious teachings, thinks others are wrong and you are right , and sometimes even want to go as far to make legislation and laws based on you morals and values which come from your religion, that is wrong you cannot legislate morals. The Late Dr Martin Luther King was a great proponent against the legislation of morality. Natural Law is the law of the land, and it differs from Country to Country, that is why certain laws are different from Country to Country. But there is another Law which is the Law of the Sea, and it is the Law that has to do with Banking, Money. and Government which is Occult hidden, that is where Canon Law comes from, but that is another story.
Mr Paul Kokoski the existence of God, has nothing to do with morals. Mr Kokoski Yes, there are universal concepts of “being’ “truth”and “good” I ‘m smart enough to know that, but not what your concept are, that is far from the truth, what your beliefs are is not the truth, period. Paul Kokoski does not have the Patent for truth. yes, you have a right to expression, but to say it is the truth, is ridiculous.. A belief is personal conviction, people form their belief’s from a myriad amount of ways. I always say, beliefs and opinions are the cheapest commodity, everybody has one, but the main question is, are they true?, and how do they arrived at those beliefs ?. Now when you talk about about the common good ought to exist , yes, it does, look at nature, look at the divine creation, I do not know where you are looking to find common good, just see what example you brought up “Heinrich Himmler” in trying to prove your point in regards to finding the common good. That is why I think the Bible was not the word of God, God has his manifestation, that is what he has produce, look into it and you will see the truth, which none of you all can tamper with, but words yes, you can, big time.
The result of free will has nothing to do with anarchy — the law of the jungle and domination which you speak of It is ludicrous, since you brought up the word the jungle. All the Native Peoples of the world were living peacefully among themselves in a civilization which had their own code of morals and valves, now here came the invaders of your religion who destroyed their civilization dominating them, even to the point of extinction, weren’t these people living among themselves, having free will. It looks like you got a problem with free will, it is one of the things God has given us and you got to accept it, like it or not, that is what helps people rebel against people trying to oppress them, freedom is God ordained, bondage is not, thanks to fee will and thinking. When you talk about quote ” contraception, in-vitro fertilization, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Such tyranny – man’s inhumanity to man – is the inevitable result when there is no lawful consensus regarding the true nature of the human being.” this just shows how intolerant you are to other people, If you do not believe any of these things that is fine, you have a right to your religious beliefs, but why do you want to impose it on other people and play God,. On the question of in-vitro fertilization, do you know how many Family’s were blessed with children through this, what evil have you seen in it?.
The moral Values we harbor changes from time to time, the values people had when they were younger are not the same as when they got older, and also people change religion, and with a change of religion, you get a change of morals and values.It is not something that is fixed, as Mr Kokoski would want us to believe, I find it very foolish going through life and not being able to, change beliefs and opinions. Life is a learning process, Look at water, if it does not run and becomes stagnant, see what happens to it. Life is a journey, we start as infants and grow into adults and with growth comes learning and experience, it is sad to see people who are stuck into one set of beliefs. Morals are good, it is what makes us human, and gives us purpose, so we all need a good set of morals to live by and finally, morality is a private and costly luxury.
Not bad on some points my Friend,but in most part,a colloquial collision(of words)…Lawyers in most instances become Politicians and some Politicians Lawyers.Do they always abide by any moral code?..how about their code of ethics or office,don’t they violate that code frequently for selfish gains?….What about their oath?……What would you say of the Defense Lawyer who has to defend his client knowing that he is guilty of murder and gets him acquitted on all charges?. Yes that is his job you might say,but what about the victim’s family? How about the Catholic priest who preys on the innocent young boy or boys?…..
Please don’t get me wrong.I see some of your reasoning, but i am just questioning whether there is any such thing as “Natural moral law”…I am just being pragmatic. And oh yes..don’t forget..Cultures,Taboo etc.
Peace profound!
Besides are couple of valid assertions, most of this is faex. It is taking us back to the neolithic age with short-sightedness and lack of peripheral insight. Such is expected from the author, however. His reasoning would still have us in chains, and set women back to the subservient stage.
One good thing came out of this dung – Mr. Papa Doc’s comments. You get it, my friend. Mr. Chavez’s alterior motives and all.
That is why it is important to always ask: What is China, Venezuala, et al, getting out of what is given or agreed to? It is not about politics. It is about where Dominica is positioning itself for the next quarter century.
The following link shows a photo of the platform built on Bird Island (Isla Aves)
http://notesfromthemargin.wordpress.com/category/venezuela/page/2/
This is a very good article, and as C.S Lewis once said in one of his books that i would advice any thinking person to read, is that we cannot measure something against something, this implies that we have to have some external source to measure our values and laws. It has to be from God’s moral laws. Some may think that we live in modern times and that the law of the past is not applicable anymore and that scripture is a fairly tale. But the greatest fairy tale is evolution which is based on naturalism, in making a story short. If our thinking is based on evidence then if one strand is missing then the entire hypothesis is flawed. How can we be absolutely sure that what we think is right when our thinking comes from time and chance.
when pluralism, secularism and privatism has taken full control of society and when we think that whatever i do is my business as long as it does not hurt, and how can we measure our actions? how do we know the impact of not hurting?, then we are entering dangerous grounds. It is a greatest myth to think that we cultures differ, take a careful look at various cultures and we will see that they do not differ after all.
If anyone would like to comment to me personally, feel free to write to [email protected]. thanks
I do respect your opinion, but there is something you are missing and fail to understand. when you say quote ‘ that we cannot measure something against something, this implies that that we have to have some external source to measure our values and laws. It has to be from God’s moral laws” an so what I’m getting from you is, the source of Gods moral law is the bible.Well that is where the problem lies, First we have to prove that the morals ascribed to bible as the word of God is indeed Gods word and authentic, before it can be used as a true measurement. If what you are going to use as a reference and measurement and it is questionable, then you cannot arrive at a true and honest outcome because what you are using as your guide is questionable and not true. I’m not saying I’m a disbeliever in God, what I’m saying, that what is ascribe to as the word of God in a book called the bible is not Gods word. In the Bible, wasn’t God sanctioning war, siding one set of people to fight and destroy another set of people, isn’t war immoral.Just to let you know I do not ascribe to the theory of Evolution ether..
You did ask a good question, How do we know what we think is the truth and where our thinking comes from. I will start of by telling you Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable the reason so few engage in. There is a process to thinking and coming up with truth. most People let others do the thinking for them. Thinking is one of our God given gifts. The first great discovery
man made was that he could think, this is when he said I’m. it is proof that we exist.,so let us not take thinking lightly.
Morality is a personal thing, worry about your own morality and values and do not try and enforce your morals and value on others, that is why we have problems, and wars, we must learn to be tolerant and respectful to others views, and that is the problem we faced with, and religion is at the core of it.
Is fighting for ones freedom and the freedom of others immoral?
How about fighting for Country,is that immoral as well?
Was World wars one and two immoral?…and oh yes,what about the battle between Good and Evil?
Is that immoral also?….Please don’t get me wrong,i am not disputing,I am just asking.That’s all.
Sorry……my questions are for Gary…………
Religion is and has not been the problem. The word is perfect, but the messengers are the ones who have been the problem. I have been an atheist once as many of the great writers maybe i might write books in the future as long as God permits. Cultural relativism states that we all have different cultures but according to C.S Lewis when we look carefully at history at cultures we will observe that their a no real differences except our way of survival. we will see the same old stories of monsters, or justice of monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, falsehood treachery the same injunctions of kindness to the poor and aged and the list goes on…….the pretense that we are present ed with mere chaos is false.
One might wonder why i come from becoming an Atheist to believing in God which according to scripture is foolishness to the word where i become a laughing stock. Just as one may point to the bible as being a story book with many unanswered questions the same can be said about evolution. The story begins with finite void matter…..by a tiny chance conditions start the spark of life….it spreads….it breeds….among hostilities here is the caveman…then the last scene the sun cools life is banished life runs down and…..the end of the story. In naturalism and the argument of reason with one strand missing one’s argument cannot stand.
If then cultures are different also one could argue that all races were created separately. The humanist approach to our learning has had and is still have devastating effects on our thinking the whole idea of self actualization. if also then our whole thinking is relative and nothing is absolute what this leads to is emptiness to hopelessness.
I honestly can’t think what is right for me i use the Bible as the best guide to my life because it comes from a creator who knew what is best for me as an individual, a guide to live with my family with friends how to conduct business. and will prevent me from marrying an animal in the future which is where the world is heading next. Making our own moral laws has not worked it has beed tried and has failed and unless we accept the best rule laws in life things will not change, Finally it is written all those things are now coming to past.
While you talik of :”Is this not a time for us all, especially lawyers and politicians to reflect on the concept of the natural moral law?”
have there been instances where Judges are bought?
How much Money is at stake on the june case?
We saw yesterday a magistrate was gunned down in St. Lucia.
Is the law swayed by such intimidation?
who will protect the Judge in Dominica?
Was the police chief legally appointed?
Has the Caribbean now entered the Nuclear Arms race?
“We are not going to build the atomic bomb but we will develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have to prepare for the post-petroleum era,” Chavez said on Thursday.
While Dominica and other Caricom nations are kept in the Dark by media that do not wish to offend the high $ clients Do We have a new arms race starting in the Caribbean sea?
Has Dominica facilitated this led by a Prime minister whose allegiance is in the OECS supreme /high court?
How? Venezuela has built strategic fuel storage and installed lights at the Melville hall airport. To date civilian aircraft have yet to use it as it is alleged that it does not meet civilian aircraft safety requirements.
Why strategic? Dominica is only ~75 miles from the military base on Bird Island/avis Island. where as it is ~400 miles from Caracas.
Avis Island cannot accommodate an airport nor fuel storage.
No one in Dominica is privy to the ALBA agreement.
If Bird island becomes recognized internationally as an island (as Venezuelan women are being flown there from Dominica to give birth)
then many other nuclear powers who have territorial waters in the Caribbean may/will more than likely face a drastic reduction in territorial waters. British, US, Dutch, French…and other Caribbean nations.
Will this also pose a threat to Trinidad and Guyana who also have territorial disputes with Venezuela?
Chavez said Moscow and Caracas would strengthen security ties to “continue increasing Venezuela’s defense capability” and move ahead with cooperation on nuclear energy.
“We are not going to build the atomic bomb but we will develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have to prepare for the post-petroleum era,” Chavez said on Thursday.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE63115A20100402
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U3CX20100331
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040200893.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYL.Fr09ZgO0&pos=9