HERE COME DA JUDGE – PART 3

Is there a universal truth about what it good and what is bad behavior? That’s the question that ended Part 2 of this post about judging other people’s behavior. My answer to the question was, “I don’t really know – probably. But, what I do know is, it is highly unlikely that we human beings will ever agree on what that "universal truth" is. I went on to say I would explain why in my next blog post. It had to do with how our brains process information.

This is the explanation I promised. This is how our brains process information.

We take in data through our senses. Then we compare that data to the knowledge we have stored in the file cabinets of our brains to try to identify it, or give it meaning. We then make assumptions about the meaning we have given the data based on the experiences stored in our memory banks. Those assumptions become our perception of reality – our truth.

Centuries of experience and a lot of research has shown us that our senses are notoriously unreliable. If a half dozen people witness a car accident or a crime being committed and you ask them what happened, you’ll get six different stories. Anyone in law enforcement anywhere in the world will tell you that’s a fact. And, it should be obvious that no two human beings have the exact same knowledge or experiences stored in their brains. That makes it very unlikely that any two of us will have the exact same perception of reality in any given situation. In other words, unless we are willing to accept someone else’s perception of reality over our own perception of reality, and why would we do that, truth is in the mind of the beholder.

If we all have our own perception of reality, our own truth, and we can’t agree on what a “universal truth” might be, assuming there is such a thing, how do we live and work together as human beings on this planet? We have two choices. We can try to impose our perception of reality, our truth, on other people using reason, manipulation or force. Or, we can create a democratic system of governance to make laws that protect the rights given to us by our Creator (whatever or whomever we believe that to be) to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Then we all have to agree to live within those laws and allow everyone to hold, follow and voice their own perception of reality and believe in their own truth.

I am pretty sure this second choice is what the founders of the United States of America had in mind when they issued their Declaration of Independence 243 years ago. Of course, their original thinking had its flaws. Their definition of “all men” being created equal wasn’t sufficiently inclusive, but the trend throughout our history has been to correct those flaws by broadening the definition of “all men” to include every human being. It was a very liberal (from the Latin liber, which means free) and revolutionary idea at the time. I think it is still a very good idea and one we all need to embrace if we hope to survive as a species on this planet. What do you think?

HERE COME DA JUDGE – PART 2

My previous blog post (HERE COME DA JUDGE) was about recognizing that human behavior has no intrinsic value. We humans behave the way we do because it gets us what we need and want. It isn’t until a group of people comes together to pursue a common interest or purpose and decides how it wants the members of its group to behave, that a value is placed on a specific behavior. That value will be stated in the form of a norm, a rule, or a law, each of which will have consequences associated with it, the most serious of which will be exclusion from the group for breaking a law (i.e. expulsion, excommunication, exile, execution, etc.).

What I apparently failed to state clearly in the previous post is that morality (A system of ideas about right and wrong conduct) is a norm and, therefore, is a social construct. Morality, or more specifically, determining what conduct or behavior is right and what behavior is wrong, has historically been the purview of religion. The problem is there are more than 4,000 recognized religions in the world today and each of these religions has decided for itself how it wants the members of its faith to behave. In other words, each religion has developed its own moral code. Some religions have even given parts of their moral code the status of laws; and if a member of those religions violates its laws he or she can be excommunicated from the faith. Consider the three largest western religions -  Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all three of which originated in the same part of the world. They all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham in the Old Testament, but they haven’t been able to agree on much more than that, especially not on what is right and wrong behavior, for almost two thousand years.

In addition, many religions, these three included, are divided into sects, which have their own versions of their religion’s moral code and they often disagree with one another about right and wrong behavior. I am talking about serious disagreements among religions and among the sects within religions, disagreements that have led to and are still the cause of long, bloody wars and enormous human suffering.  And, you know what? Almost all the members of each of these 4000+ religions and the many different sects within those religions believe that their moral code, handed down to them by their God(s), is the right one and everyone’s else’s moral code is wrong.

There is an assumption in this country that many Americans share and the assumption is that there is one moral code that applies to all Americans. Some people go so far as to insist that the United States is a Christian nation as evidenced by the fact that we say “In God We Trust” on our money. Yes, we do say that, but we don’t say whose God we trust. The statement is merely an acknowledgement that we believe in a higher power. The United States of America is made up of many races, many religions, many cultures and many generations. Consequently, we have many different beliefs about all sorts of things including what is right and what is wrong behavior, which, by the way, our Constitution specifically guarantees us the right to hold, follow and voice. The only thing the Constitution requires is that we don’t break the laws of the land. We can break a rule if we are willing to pay the penalty, but if we break the law we will be excluded from society and forfeit all of our rights as citizens – Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

If people are saying or doing what they believe is right, even if it is different from what we believe is right, and they are not breaking any laws or trying to force their beliefs on others, because forcing their beliefs on others IS breaking the law, we don’t have to agree with them, we don’t have to accept or condone what they are doing, we don’t have to like them, we don’t even have to associate with them. Rest assured, they feel the same way about us. However, we do have to live with them, and work with them, and share this great country’s bounty with them. That IS the law of the land. As long as they are not breaking the law, which includes forcing their beliefs on others, we have no right to deprive them of their rights under the 1st Amendment of our Constitution, the very purpose of which was to ensure all of our citizens the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Granted, our laws haven’t always worked the way they were intended to work, but that is because we humans administer our legal system and we are imperfect. It is not necessarily the fault of the legal system. However, if and when it is the fault of the legal system, we can and have changed that system.

Furthermore, since we would all be better off if we could live together in harmony instead of at each other’s throats all the time, we would have a much better chance of doing so if we didn’t think of others as immoral, unpatriotic or otherwise inferior simply because they hold, follow or voice beliefs that reflect a different moral code, which, as I've said, is their Constitutional right.

In this context, I think it is fair to say that Political Correctness, as it is being practiced in this country today, is actually a violation of our Constitutional rights as citizens in the sense that it is being used to persecute our fellow, law-abiding citizens for holding, following and voicing beliefs that reflect a moral code that is different from ours.

I realize that what I’ve just said begs the question “Isn't there a universal truth?” I don’t really know – probably. But, what I do know is, it is highly unlikely that we human beings will ever agree on what that “universal truth” is. I’ll explain why in my next blog post, HERE COME DA JUDGE – PART 3. It has to do with how our brains process information.