There Ought to Be a Law--Well, Maybe
The United States Constitution is a document so beautiful
that it implies divine intervention.
Simple in form and only four pages long in its original hand written
form, it created our government, allowed for change, and, most important of
all, preserved to the states all matters not mentioned in the Constitution
itself.
The writing
of the Constitution certainly showed a cosmic alignment of intellectual
stars. Gouverneur Morris probably wrote
the eloquent words of the Preamble.
James Madison is generally called the, “Father of the Constitution”
though his efforts might be more akin to those of a midwife, with much pushing,
pulling and exhortations to ever greater effort. He was certainly aided by the enormous
talents of the men who worked with him.
George Washington headed the commission.
Benjamin Franklin was a moral presence.
While the twin geniuses of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were in Europe their good works were ever present. Adams had written the Massachusetts
constitution which proved a working model as did the New York
Yet, with all due and sincere
respect to out amazing Constitution, its very existence hides an ugly
truth. That truth is this: every law,
whether a constitutional amendment or a city ordinance, represents a failure of
mankind. If we always did what we
should, if we behaved as we ought, if we all lived lives of exemplary
circumspection, there would be no need for laws of any kind. Instead of laws applied externally, and
conceived after the execution of a wrong, we need simply to act as Immanuel
Kant described in his categorical imperative, “Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.” A codification of laws always
represents the inability of mankind to behave in a morally justified way.
We are uniquely sentient
creatures. We know right from
wrong. We can anticipate the
consequences of our actions. We can hope
for right thinking and right action but we also know that moral living is a
tenuous tug of war between animal instincts and our human probity. Most of us try to live ethical lives, but we
know that we can fall short, and that not everyone works as hard at morality as
we do. And so we have laws. We may not like them, but we need them, we
have them, and the alternative is anarchy.
While laws
represent a failure in the human condition they also represent our attempt to
right wrongs. Yet, there is a certain
laziness that accompanies the casual statement, “There ought to be a law…” Actually, there ought to be good works, sober
judgment and accountability for ones actions. The addition of laws is a tricky
thing. Is the law designed to right a
wrong, or satisfy a baser nature in ourselves?
If a law is being advocated to accomplish a larger good it is
justified. If, on the other hand, the
law imposes an injustice on one group while benefiting another, it is not a law
but legalistic manipulation. A law that
does individual harm rather than universal good both steals liberty and
corrupts government. Laws are grand
things and should do grand works.
There is so
much in the news these days of laws being proposed, executed, and invoked. What we need are more people who want to do
the right thing. Let’s start talking
more about ethics and less about blame.
Teach
morality and keep the faith.
Comments