The Search for Liberty; Appendix: The Form of the Good Made Manifest

NB: All previous chapters can be found here.

This will be a challenge, both for me and readers of this book.  How to capture the characteristics of Jesus in a manner sufficient to at least paint a picture of the target for which humans should aim – the Form of the Good, demonstrating the proper ends, purpose, or telos for human beings.  Understanding these ends, one can begin to properly apply reason in order to properly deduce Natural Law.

A challenge for me because I know even before I start that I will fail; a challenge for readers because it will take great patience when you bring this to my attention.

Inherently this won’t be a complete picture – turn to your favorite translation of the Bible for that, along with reading from any of your favorite theologians, pastors, and apologists.  I will attempt to give a taste – an accurate set of examples that demonstrate the breadth, depth, complexity, and the unachievable example He gave us.

A good portion of this Appendix follows a video by Paul VanderKlay, on Jesus as Archetype.  All passages from the Bible are taken from Bible Gateway.

The foundation:

John1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Jesus Christ is the Word, the logos as referred to in this opening verse.

Genesis 1: 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

We are made in God’s image; this is the same as saying that we are made in the image of Christ.  The basis for seeing in Jesus the manifest Form of the Good is here, as is the basis for humans to follow this Form.  So, what can we learn from Him?

Matthew 22: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

“And the second is like it…”  I am sure that there are many more well-thought out expositions of the meaning of this transitional phrase; I will offer mine: we demonstrate our love of God by demonstrating our love to our neighbors. 

Love is in the doing.  It is captured in the Latin word Beatitudo:

The happiness that comes from seeing the good in others and doing the good for others. It is, in essence, other-regarding action.

Beatitudo: this has been described by Aquinas as the proper ends or purpose of man.  It seems a good place to start – the Beatitudes as offered in Matthew 5; to summarize: Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those persecuted because of righteousness.

In the popular culture, these verses are pointed to as the prime example of Jesus’ weakness.  Instead, what is actually found are maximized examples of both kindness (meekness and mercy) and strength (persecuted for righteousness).  Imagine the character it takes to achieve both – not in balance, but to maximize each; consider these as diverse excellencies.

Paul furthers this in Galatians 5: 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. 

The fruit reflects the tree.

What underlies all of these is love.  Jesus does not offer love in any feeling terms; each example requires doing.  He did some real doing:

no hero in your tragedy

no daring in your escape

no salutes for your surrender

nothing noble in your fate

Christ, what have you done?

-          The Pass, Rush

This is how much of the world sees Christ’s crucifixion – He gave up, He surrendered, He escaped.  In other words, He was too weak to shoulder a load.  Yet this was no weak man:

The Search for Liberty; Chapter Seventeen: Ergo Summatim

NB: All previous chapters can be found here.

Well, that’s it.  I think it is worth offering a brief summary as it seems a good way to close this book; it also will be helpful for those who don’t want to read too much.

In Plato we find the Form of the Good – the perfect triangle that exists in the abstract.  Aristotle placed this in physical form.  In other words, Plato offered us God; Aristotle required Jesus – the perfect form made manifest.

Human beings, like all of creation, are created with a purpose, an end, a telos.  It is easy to understand this for a tree, a rock, or a lion.  It is easy to understand this for an eye or a heart.  So why not when it comes to humans?  Are we given rationality and reason in exchange for a lack of proper ends?  “Do whatever you want”?  It seems a poor trade, one sure to lead to a meaningless life; it could easily lead to hell on earth.

But then what is that end?  God is the Form of the Good, but this is not understandable and therefore hardly useful for humans – what do we do with that which is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent?  We are none of these and can comprehend little of these.  We have been given Jesus – the Form of the Good made manifest.  In Him and through Him we find man’s end and purpose. 

Man’s end or purpose can be summarized in the Golden Rule, which can be considered the basis or objective of Natural Law.  Throughout history and throughout the world, the concept of the Golden Rule has been offered – in many cultures and many religious traditions.  However, only in Christianity did it develop in a manner extended to all humans, and not merely to kings – perhaps because the concept of man being made in God’s image is fundamental to Christianity.

Thomas Aquinas further developed Aristotelian Metaphysics, incorporating Christian theology into a holistic philosophical view.  While not being the first to do so, he offered happiness as the end, or purpose, for man.  But not happiness in the superficial sense we know the term; in the Latin, beatitudo:

The happiness that comes from seeing the good in others and doing the good for others. It is, in essence, other-regarding action.

These ends are objective – they are not chosen at random by the pure reason of each individual.  These ends are to be discovered; they are in humans, not invented by humans. 

The issue: can the judged also be judge?  Can man be the judge of proper natural law?  If it is on man’s judgement – man’s pure reason – then how is this law objective?  Who, or what, will arbitrate when two men disagree?  On what basis will this be settled?  Will there be a third man above these two?  Who will stand in judgement of him?  If man (meaning all men) judges in this as opposed to accepting judgement from a third party, liberty cannot be found.

Which brings us back, full circle, to God as the perfect Form of the Good, and Jesus as that form made manifest.  If man uses his reason against this example of Jesus, he will not stray far from the mark.  The judged will be judged by a third party – the only party who can rightly judge. 

What of violations of the Natural Law that are not violations of the non-aggression principle?  Does liberty require breaking a few eggs for non-violent offenses?  This would seem to lead to theocracy.  A different path, yet a similar result if one follows the non-aggression principle devoid of any other absolutist ethics – both paths encroach on liberty while claiming to save liberty; both paths lead to diminished liberty.  One is merely left to debate degrees.

If one is after liberty, the proper way to deal with non-violent offenses of the discovered Natural Law is through advice and counsel, not physical punishment.  Providing advice and counsel is the role of parents, families, communities – to properly teach and hold accountable.  But fundamentally, it is the role of the Church – or Christianity, more properly, today.  Christianity, institutionally, must play this role.  Such absolutist ethics are not sustainable without an institution behind these.

As an aside, love – the “other-regarding action” of beatitudo – is to be found in the doing, not in advocating for government action.  It is here where the rubber of Christian advice and counsel must hit the road, in the doing.

Finally, every community will have different norms for the continuum – the spaces in between – as objective ethics offer little in the way of identifying the point along the continuum acceptable within a given community.  Questions on topics such as property, aggression, punishment, age of majority – there are many acceptable answers in between the easily identifiable extremes.

Conclusion

Asking questions, search for clues

The answer's been right in front of you

-          Octavarium, Dream Theater

Libertarianism is insufficient for liberty.  So that this opinion regarding objective ethical values grounded in natural law cannot be simply dismissed as a “Christian” opinion, consider Murray Rothbard when discussing the utilitarian approach of Mises:

What I have been trying to say is that Mises's utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics is not nearly enough to establish a full case for liberty. It must be supplemented by an absolutist ethic — an ethic of liberty, as well as of other values needed for the health and development of the individual — grounded on natural law, i.e., discovery of the laws of man's nature. Failure to recognize this is the greatest flaw in Mises's philosophical worldview. (Emphasis added.)

An absolutist ethic, made up of ethics for liberty as well as of other values, is required if one is to make a full case for liberty.  The non-aggression principle makes no such claim as to being so complete.  For any libertarian in the Rothbardian tradition, it seems this trail had already been significantly blazed long ago.  The answer has been sitting right in front of me, in plain sight.

Objective ethics grounded in natural law.  Perhaps one more reason that mainstream libertarians hate Rothbard.

Epilogue

You will note that I say nothing in this book about examining details of Natural Law beyond pointing to Jesus as offering an example.  This is by choice, as the topic is much beyond my intended scope.  But I will offer an examination of Jesus in the Appendix: His life, His words, and His deeds. 

Call it a roadmap.

The Search for Liberty; Chapter Sixteen: The Continuum

NB: All previous chapters can be found here.

Theory is easy, application is hard.  The concept of Natural Law and the principle of non-aggression – grasping the ideas is one thing, putting these into practice is quite another.  While developing a detailed examination of Natural Law is beyond the scope of this book and my capability (although I do intend to examine some of the characteristics of Jesus as the Form of the Good for human ends and purposes), we will, in this chapter, examine application of the non-aggression principle.

So…I kind of told a fib already.  Application of the principle of non-aggression is only difficult for those who believe that libertarian theorists must define to the nth degree the application for every event, transaction, transgression, and possibility.  I am not one of these.  Application is easy if one accepts that the underlying culture, customs, and traditions will answer the questions offered by the continuum – and that this underlying culture is generally accepted by the subject population as one conducive for maintaining peace.

What do I mean by the continuum?  Consider the term “aggression.”  At one extreme, the idea of random, pre-meditated murder we all understand; at the other, a loud voice.  It is easy to describe the first as a violation of the non-aggression principle and the second as not.  But what of everything in-between?

Putting hands on my body?  Is it in self-defense?  What is self-defense?  When is it justified?  In what proportion is it acceptable?  Punishment?  In what amount?  Restitution?  Pollution?  What of smoke from your grill moving over the neighbor’s yard?  Is it a violation or an invitation or a mere nuisance to be ignored?

What of property?  Many libertarians agree with Locke and the mixing of labor with land.  How much mixing is sufficient mixing?  Did the tribes mix enough labor on the lands of the Great Plains?  Reparations?  For whom, in what amount?  On what evidence?  What of those who will now be displaced?

There are countless essays attempting to answer these questions in ever finer detail.  Why?  As Silva offered to James Bond in Skyfall after a long chase and big shoot-‘em-up and where Silva believes he has Bond cornered:

“You see what comes of all this running around, Mr. Bond?  All this jumping and fighting.  It’s exhausting.  Relax.  You need to relax.”

No one will pay any attention to your opinion of their cultural norms.  I am not speaking of the extremes, where violations (or not) of the non-aggression principle are easy to identify.  I am speaking of the continuum – the vast middle between the easy extremes, the space in which there are many right answers.

There are two ways for this continuum to be regulated – as this must be regulated if anyone is to survive.  One is regulation by a generally accepted, common cultural tradition – evolving naturally, as all traditions do.  The second is by force – government dictating detailed rules and regulations, all enforced at the end of a gun and incarceration.

This is why maintaining and defending a common cultural tradition is mandatory if one wants to maintain a libertarian society, and this is why government works to ensure that common cultural traditions are destroyed.  When culture doesn’t regulate and provide governance, the state will happily do so.

“Oh, but you are saying I have to conform to traditions that I might not fully agree with if I want to live in liberty!  It doesn’t sound like liberty to me.”

We all have to conform if we want to function in society, the question is via what method: reasonably voluntary culture and tradition, or force backed up by a gun and prison.  There is no third option – not if interaction with other humans is desired.

Conclusion

Just a couple of thoughts: first, the necessity of conforming to local custom and tradition is one reason that decentralization is the proper political option for those advocating for liberty.  It is easier to conform comfortably the more choices one has; the more society is decentralized, the more choices one has.

Second, there are many who work for or advocate for the destruction of the cultural traditions of the West – including many well-known libertarians and libertarian institutes.  Will this joint desire result in more liberty, as the libertarians claim, or in more control, as is clearly desired by others?  The answer to this is easy.