Rethinking Ethics

The following is a piece on ethics, as apart of a greater piece I am working on:

ETHICS

Albeit abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, prostitution, gun rights, etc., the government has failed in the proper handling of ethics. The notion of state's rights is obscured, and the basic means of government protecting our freedom is largely done away with.

i. Abortion

Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which ruled that abortion was a natural right for all women. No state could even take it away, except on a few precise measures that were spelled out by the Supreme Court. Many conservative pro-lifers consider this ruling as one in which the government fails to do what it should do, that it, the government is allowing for abortion, when it should be keeping abortions from being done. Although this is the case in many respects, we should also look at this in light of the greater cultural war that has been going on from quite some time. This cultural war, which brings forth much problem in the Central Government today, is the diminishing of state's rights, and the degrading view of the Constitution.

Let us go back to the way Jefferson viewed the Constitution. Jefferson wanted to build schools and roads, but did not see these things permitted in the Constitution. He therefore did not carry through these things. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, leaving us to believe it is up to the states. If the Central Government did rule in the case of abortion, it should be done by an amendment. Furthermore, it would make since to make abortion illegal, if they did indeed rule in the case, given that it is the government's job to protect our liberties, which include life.

The question does become a question of "where does sacred life begin?" This question is scientific, religious, moral, and philosophical. Science can give us reason to believe in some sort of real human life, and when it begins. Consider this logical analysis:

Matter can not be created or destroyed.
I am matter.
I am human.
I have not always been human.
Therefore, there was a time in which my physical substance became human.

Science can answer this question, but only to a point. Science might could tell us that the right cells and DNA joined together in a place suitable for survival, making a real living being - in the case of human reproduction, a human. But as far as science is concerned, there is no real basis to defy human life as any more sacred than the life of a dog, for instance. This is where philosophy, religion, and morality come into play, all under the notion of natural law.

Some would argue that the government should not rule in deciding where sacred life begins. Supposedly, since this is a sacred question, in one respect, it would join government and religion together to have the government answer the question. But ultimately, government can not answer the question. Either life is sacred or it is not. The government is here to protect that which is sacred. If we reach a conclusion by science and natural law that sacred life begins in a human womb, then it should follow that abortion, at some level, should be illegal, so that the sanctity of human life may be preserved. Still, they do not answer the question - natural law does. Arguing that the government should not decide what life is sacred or not, is like arguing that the government should not decide if pigs could fly.

If it is concluded that abortion should be illegal, the next question is, "what level of government should make it illegal?" County government, state government, Central Government, the United Nations? The best possible solution would be that it come from the state government, as they have their own laws on murder, theft, etc. However if the Central Government did rule in the case, it should be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. Now let us consider how Roe Vs. Wade was done. Did it pass the test?

The Central Government should be silent on the issue of abortion (Fail).
If the Central Government does rule in the case, it should make abortion illegal (Fail).
If the Central Government declares abortion a natural right, it should at least be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution (Fail).

The Supreme Court failed on all of these issues. This shows great ignorance for the Constitution and natural law on apart of the Judges in Roe Vs. Wade. This was a bad form of government.

ii. (Homosexual Marriage)
Homosexual marriage is a much heated topic in today's world, though there are little rulings to show for it. There is not infamous ruling on the issue as there is for abortion. Still the handling of the issue and the interpretation of the issue, shows great ignorance again for our Constitution and for natural law.

Fortunately, any ruling on the issue shows support for an amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes whether or not there should be that amendment. Like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the issue, leading us to believe it should be left up to the states.

Some would argue that ruling against homosexual marriages, basically outlawing them, would join the government more and more in with the church. But what we should really consider is if the government has a hand in marriage at all. Currently, the state issues marriage license for people getting married. If marriage is defined as a sacred covenental union between one man and one woman, then the government contradicts itself by issuing a legal documentation of marriage between two people of the same sex. However if the state was out of the issue entirely, not even to issue a marriage license, then two people of the same sex could live together, sleep together, and call it marriage, when in reality, it may not be marriage at all, given that it contradicts the definition of marriage. Marriage itself is sacred, and if two people have a partnership that defies the sacred definition of marriage, then it is no marriage at all.

With this said, Americans, including their politicians, seem to have a hard time understanding how government fits in to the issue of homosexual marriage, or if it even does at all. We forget that states have their rights to make the laws regarding these issues, and we forget the very nature of marriage itself. If two men want to sleep together, I would rather see the dollars I freely tithe go to help these men repent, than see my tax dollars go to having the FBI police their bedroom.

iii. The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is another issue that is misunderstood. Many people see drugs as something that should be stopped, and they want it stopped by the Central Government. This can essentially invite the government into your home to see if you have drugs.

Do not misunderstand this to presume I make any point to morally justify drugs, or even to take away the right of a state to issue a war on drugs, although on state issues, it could even be argued that the state should be out of the drug issue.

Some illegal drugs can actually, in rare but existing circumstances, be used for beneficial medical purposes. But so long as these drugs are outlawed, law-abiding doctors and nurses will not obtain the beneficial illegal drug for the patient.

On the other hand, however, the drug-addicts will still go after drugs. They will get them from Mexico, from robbery, even from murder. A war on drugs actually increases crime. Prohibition led to more crime, so it can easily follow that prohibiting drugs, especially at the level of the Central Government, can lead to more crime. Results has shown that it has.

In saying this, an employer has every right to ask an employee or potential employee for a drug test, and deny them a job or fire them if they fail. If I was an owner of some sort of business, I would probably not want drug dealers working for me. But I would also not want the government telling me that they can't.

The drug war is like the gun war in many respects. Outlawing drugs reducing crime is about as likely (or unlikely) as outlawing guns would reduce crime. There will still be drugs out there, and the criminal will even go to the point of murder to get them.

It could be argued, and I would strongly support it, that there should be laws (at a local or state level), against the selling of drugs to minors. A six-year old may not really understand the effects of drugs, and anyone who causes this person to try the drug, except for medical purposes, shall be punished. At the same time, if drugs become rampant in one community, then it could be argued that drugs should become illegal at that local level. But they should never be outlawed on the level of the Central Government.

iv. Gun Control

Although there is no law against the possession of guns, the movement for it has become rampant. Gun control is perhaps one of the sillier of ideas. At least in Roe Vs. Wade the Judges claimed some honor for the Constitution, and even defended their ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment (although it is a lame defense). The right to keep and bear arms is listed in (out of all places!) the Bill of Rights - even the Second Amendment. Out of all the things our Founding Fathers wanted to secure most, the right to keep and bear arms was listed just behind the freedom of the press, and denying a national religion or church. Owning guns not only protects the people against other citizens who take away life and property, but even against government that tries to take away their right to life and property, et al.

Beyond this, gun control laws do not help reduce crime. In fact, cities with the toughest gun control laws actually have higher crime. When people are free to own guns, criminals are scared. Many criminals actually say that they are scared of the people owning guns more than the government.

It could even be argued that no state shall pass a law against the owning of guns, and that the Central Government should secure this, given that it is deemed as a natural right. But at any rate, outlawing guns should certainly not come from the Central Government.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Pray for our Troops

God Bless You

January 10, 2008

Ryan Hampton