|
In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:50:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, it can put in the form of a question: If not âunder God,â then under what? Why must there be an "under" anything? Although the existential condition of being "under" nothing might generate a certain anxiety at (possibly) being alone in the universe, that only explains (for some) why the human spirit seeks such a reality. It does not explain why we must be "under" something rather than nothing. Additionally, I do not see how our being "under" anything is necessary for either morality or for constitutional government. Many of us seek constitutional government because we see it as better than most alternatives, where "better" has an appropriately modest meaning, namely, decreases the degree of suffering and cruelty in the world, and does so as judged from our perspectives or from our lights. As a first principle (again for some) decreasing the degree of suffering and cruelty in the world cannot be justified without circularity. However, with all due respect neither can the proposition that we should decrease suffering and cruelty (or adhere to any other moral code) because some independent reality deems that we should.
First principles, whether embracing the need for an independent reality to justify who we are and what we do or whether we reject such a reality, are just that first, and as Wittgenstein, and then others after him, have indicated, justification must come to an end at some point, and I would add it must come to an end for anyone and everyone.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
