TINSTAAFL - History and Moral Philosophy

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

First and foremost it should be clearly understood that to a scientist a law is immutable, irrevocable, inviolable and mathematically invariable, each discipline based on a rigorous mathematical formula.

In the realm of human endeavor, however, so-called laws created by humanity are changed constantly, revoked repeatedly, violated veritably every second of every day and are subject to constant interpretation by jurists based on the prevailing moral and judicial (i.e. political) philosophy and have absolutely no mathematical rigor.

In the annals of humanity these “laws” have been enacted by medicine men, tribal chieftains, emperors, conquerors, kings, depots, parliaments, amphictionic councils, legislatures and congressional delegations to name just a few. To what end? Why has humanity had this all consuming need to create myriad rules and regulations to govern their everyday life to no end? The Roman Catholic Decalogue was precise and concise and was originally geared for a specific culture but in the ensuing ages has become the so-called foundation for a complicated litany of statutes, ordinances, resolutions, canons and many other rules and regulations known by a host of names yet all lumped together under the label of “laws”. Why?

First, let us examine the so-called ‘law of Moses’. The first five ‘books’ of the Old Testament tell of the travails of the Jewish nation, those who believed in one god and called him YWH. In the book of Deuteronomy there are enumerated a number of tribal laws that were purportedly handed down from YWH. These included dietary laws, laws dealing with marriage and personal intercourse. Of course there were also religious laws that dealt with how one was to worship YWH and even detailed what one was to wear and how one was to act. Religion thus controlled every facet of one’s life. Why?

What had once been tribal custom was codified into the set of Judaic laws that prevail even today. The ban against eating pork, shellfish and other forbidden food products has a scientific basis that stems from the scientific principle of cause and effect. What causes illness and disease was to be avoided. One was not to place fish in a bowl that had been used for milk, or vice-versa. Why? The Hebrew’s were originally a nomadic people and the bowls they used were unfired crockery. They were quite porous. If one put milk into a bowl there would be residual traces of milk in the pores which if mingled with fish would case the fish to be tainted and food poisoning would result. With pork we know today that if its not cooked thoroughly there is the danger of trichinosis, from the trichina worm that is often found in the meat. The Hebrew’s, of course, did not have the facilities to cook pork properly, thus the ban.

So, we have an inkling as to why these ‘laws’ were enacted, and what better way to enforce them than to claim they were the ‘word of god’. Enforcement of ‘laws’ has always been a problem faced by rising cultures. That’s why enforcement was originally handled by the medicine man, shaman, or religious leaders. Yet, this practice eventually led to corruption of authority and led to many abuses.

When the American Colonies were established by differing religious groups it was not for religious freedom as the history books often claim. Rather, it was to establish their own religious dictatorships. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the colony of Massachusetts founded by the Pilgrims. They brooked no opposition to their teachings and punished severely or banished anyone who thought or acted otherwise. They even went so far as to believe in witches and developed quite unusual punishments to deal with those they perceived to be practitioners of the dark arts. It was such punishments as these that the Constitution addresses when it speaks of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’.

But we have still not addressed the reason why ‘laws’ were created. What is the basis for these rules and regulations? Let us be analytical and apply a bit of logic to determine the reason. Some would say ‘safety’ but that doesn’t account for a variety of factors. Safety of who – of the people, the family, the state, the nation or the world itself?

No, there is something even more basic than safety. Just what is it? What is the basic reason?

Let us look at humanity itself. What is the basic instinct of individuals? In fact, what is the only instinct of human beings? What is the basic motivation of humanity? In part two we will address this issue and demonstrate the fallacy of many human philosophies and how they adversely affected the history of humanity.