![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
citrakayahI have decided to write an essay tonight. It follows, with little introduction because I didn't have the inspiration to write one.
The Constitution, I think, is one of the over-hyped documents on the planet. Ask someone why they support something (especially things like gun ownership, state's rights, etc.) and you are far more likely to get the answer 'because it's in the Constitution, dammit' than 'well, after carefully considering the practical effects and moral justifications for a policy, I decided, logically, in favor of it'.
There's an interesting dichotomy to this, though. We usually revere those who broke laws and constitutional principles (at least as they were decided by the courts) because they were wrong, not those who unquestioningly obeyed morally wrong laws and constitutional principles. Martin Luther King broke laws. The guys who fought the Revolutionary War broke laws and constitutional principles (and while I might consider them troglodytes by today's standards, they do get credit for being more liberal than the monarchy). The people of the Underground Railroad broke laws. Harriet Tubman broke laws.
Now, I realize that laws are different from constitutional principles, the former are built upon the latter. But neither is morally binding. I refuse to look to the Constitution for instruction as to what to do or what not to do. I look to myself, and use logic and reason. I attempt to go beyond stage four and five of Kohlber's stages of moral development (I'm aware of the problems with Kohlberg's stages but think that they accurately describe basic manners in which people arrive at moral conclusions) and on to stage six.
I've seen too many people who don't truly think for themselves. They fancy themselves free because they live in a democracy, but they aren't. Is a person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome who can physically leave but doesn't free? No, of course not. While not a perfect comparison, something similar is happening here. People view things as moral because they are told so. The fact that they are told so by their interpretation of a two hundred year old document that has created an acceptable governmental framework is irrelevant, especially because the only reason it ever worked was because people weren't afraid to call it out when it was wrong. And it was wrong, very very often.
I discussed this with my parents over dinner. They seemed to object, based on the grounds that people would try to insert Christianity in public life if this was the case. I see several problems with this and objections of similar nature. The first is that people often justify such measures based on appeal to tradition and/or laws- I've heard many times that we should do X because the Founding Fathers did X (which often they didn't). I would do away with this. The second is that I'm arguing for a shift in how we discuss morality not how we follow laws. I admit that I am in favor of the art of Rule Fu, in which one bends rules to get away with doing the moral thing. But what I'm arguing for here is universal adherence to the doctrine of civil disobediance, universal holding of the truth that just because something is in the Constitution or a similar document doesn't make it right, and universal acceptable of efforts to guide our society by a path based on reason and morality, not old crumbling documents. The third is that... okay, there isn't actually a third, but two's enough.
A different objection, and, in my opinion, a more salient one, is that people frequently have bad concepts of morality- Rousseau was, tragically, wrong. But I think this not to be a problem. I think that much of what causes people to have a bad concept of morality is an inability to reason for oneself. I think that if people did, they might see much clearer. In any event, existing laws and constitutional frameworks would still be in place: They just wouldn't be revered. I do not think that reverence for antiques are the only thing keeping society from regressing. Call me naive.
I don't know if my dream will ever bear fruit. It's probable that it won't in my lifetime, something that I really do hate admitting. Certainly they'll always be some guy saying 'Yeah, we should do this 'cause it's in the Constitution. Also: 'Mur'ca.' But I'll be damned if I'm going to not speak out against the lack of independent moral reasoning. And I'll be double damned if I'll follow it.
I make my own path, treacherous though it sometimes may be.
The Constitution, I think, is one of the over-hyped documents on the planet. Ask someone why they support something (especially things like gun ownership, state's rights, etc.) and you are far more likely to get the answer 'because it's in the Constitution, dammit' than 'well, after carefully considering the practical effects and moral justifications for a policy, I decided, logically, in favor of it'.
There's an interesting dichotomy to this, though. We usually revere those who broke laws and constitutional principles (at least as they were decided by the courts) because they were wrong, not those who unquestioningly obeyed morally wrong laws and constitutional principles. Martin Luther King broke laws. The guys who fought the Revolutionary War broke laws and constitutional principles (and while I might consider them troglodytes by today's standards, they do get credit for being more liberal than the monarchy). The people of the Underground Railroad broke laws. Harriet Tubman broke laws.
Now, I realize that laws are different from constitutional principles, the former are built upon the latter. But neither is morally binding. I refuse to look to the Constitution for instruction as to what to do or what not to do. I look to myself, and use logic and reason. I attempt to go beyond stage four and five of Kohlber's stages of moral development (I'm aware of the problems with Kohlberg's stages but think that they accurately describe basic manners in which people arrive at moral conclusions) and on to stage six.
I've seen too many people who don't truly think for themselves. They fancy themselves free because they live in a democracy, but they aren't. Is a person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome who can physically leave but doesn't free? No, of course not. While not a perfect comparison, something similar is happening here. People view things as moral because they are told so. The fact that they are told so by their interpretation of a two hundred year old document that has created an acceptable governmental framework is irrelevant, especially because the only reason it ever worked was because people weren't afraid to call it out when it was wrong. And it was wrong, very very often.
I discussed this with my parents over dinner. They seemed to object, based on the grounds that people would try to insert Christianity in public life if this was the case. I see several problems with this and objections of similar nature. The first is that people often justify such measures based on appeal to tradition and/or laws- I've heard many times that we should do X because the Founding Fathers did X (which often they didn't). I would do away with this. The second is that I'm arguing for a shift in how we discuss morality not how we follow laws. I admit that I am in favor of the art of Rule Fu, in which one bends rules to get away with doing the moral thing. But what I'm arguing for here is universal adherence to the doctrine of civil disobediance, universal holding of the truth that just because something is in the Constitution or a similar document doesn't make it right, and universal acceptable of efforts to guide our society by a path based on reason and morality, not old crumbling documents. The third is that... okay, there isn't actually a third, but two's enough.
A different objection, and, in my opinion, a more salient one, is that people frequently have bad concepts of morality- Rousseau was, tragically, wrong. But I think this not to be a problem. I think that much of what causes people to have a bad concept of morality is an inability to reason for oneself. I think that if people did, they might see much clearer. In any event, existing laws and constitutional frameworks would still be in place: They just wouldn't be revered. I do not think that reverence for antiques are the only thing keeping society from regressing. Call me naive.
I don't know if my dream will ever bear fruit. It's probable that it won't in my lifetime, something that I really do hate admitting. Certainly they'll always be some guy saying 'Yeah, we should do this 'cause it's in the Constitution. Also: 'Mur'ca.' But I'll be damned if I'm going to not speak out against the lack of independent moral reasoning. And I'll be double damned if I'll follow it.
I make my own path, treacherous though it sometimes may be.
