Yes

I refer you back to the original post of this blog.  The question was:  "If (by some convoluted moral morass) legislation passed that legalized shooting the owner of dogs that yipped late at night and disturbed their neighbors, does that mean that it is no longer wrong?  For this discussion, I will choose "YES" as the correct answer.

 Wow, what freedom I now have!  I have begun eagerly pursuing purchasing a firearm, both to protect myself (I have two, normally quiet, dogs), and to solve a 2 month problem with my next door neighbor.  As I flip through the Cabella's magazine that is laying around, my mind starts spinning a bit.  Wait a sec, what does this truly mean?

If I can justify my behaviors based solely on the legal code, this means that other tremendous changes can be pursued.  You see, I've always wanted to dreamed of driving a Corvette, but can, sadly, NOT afford one.  Therefore, I am now convinced that it should be okay for me to go and take one from a dealership without paying.  My life-long dreams are sacred, after all.  If I can persuade enough people to side with me, we can eventually make this happen.  What amazing possibilities are in store!

Apparently, if this is the correct answer, the legal code can be built upon what the majority desires, be it peace and safety, or be it a quiet neighborhood and a shiny red Z06.  This, of course, does cause me to pause.  What if the majority wants things that are harmful to others?  Maybe this is be the line which should be drawn.  That must be it:  If it is harmful to others, it cannot be legal.

Hold on, hold on. Who defines what it means to be harmful to others?  Apparently whoever that entity is now is in full control over what my behavior should or should not be. 

This choice has led me into a labyrinth of definitions and opinions, and I am now helpless to find a true direction to base my moral compass upon.  I will just wing it, and defend my mistakes vehemently.  I hope that my subconscious mind does not entice me to commit dreadful mistakes by finding some logical, but wrong, structure to justify my actions.  Wow, do I feel confused.  I am lost at sea.

A deviation

I would like to continue this conversation where it left off, on the concept of universal truth, but the gravity of today's remembrance prompts me to deviate for a bit.  Whether you are a follower of Jesus, a distant admirer, or a total skeptic, you need to understand what history has to say on the topic.  Kinda has to do with truth, you know.  So, if you are in the mood for a bit of an in-depth journey to discover the truth about this mysterious rabbi, grab a cup of coffee, click on the following link, and take 20 minutes to see what you learn.  WARNING:  this isn't light fuzzy reading.   An Empty Tomb?

I would love to hear your feedback on this article

What do you mean, TRUTH?!?

I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine a couple of days ago.  We were working on a roof together, and in between heaving scratchy piles of shingles off of the roof and climbing up and down ladders, we went pretty deep.  It started with "How is college going for you?" and went to "Does universal truth exist?"

In actuality, all of life's questions really come down to this.  You're not sure?  Here's an example.  Is it wrong for me to kill my neighbor, because her ankle-biter dog keeps barking at 10:30pm, causing great distress and anxiety in our Great Dane?  It is, you say.  Why?  It's illegal?  I didn't ask if it was legal.  The legal system is a conglomerate of legislation passed through an extensive process of drafting, being "floored", passing the two bodies of the Congressional branch, being signed by the Executive branch, and, finally, being upheld by the Judicial branch.  You are welcome for the 5th grade civics lesson.  That entire process, while designed with 3-D protections and regulations, is all about some paper with words and some signed names.  The question I asked was, is it wrong?

I would contend that most people have ideal behaviors that they desire to live by, but if pushed into a corner, ultimately use the legal system as the structure upon which they hang their "modus operandi."  That is not adequate.  What if legislation was passed that okay'd murdering obnoxious dog owners?  An enormous stretch, I agree, but all it would take is a majority of the entire legislation process to agree upon it.  Actually, it wouldn't even take that.  A loud and obtuse minority offering enough pork could possibly get the job done.  If that were to happen, would it change the answer to the question:  Is it wrong?

There are three possible answers:  yes, no, or there is no such thing as definitive wrong.  Herein lies the epic confrontation in the heart of man.  If one were to acknowledge that is is wrong, he or she must than ponder, "Why?"  If one claims that it is  not wrong, he or she must get rid of their dog, and quickly.  If one claims the third option, then they are allowing their lives to be dictated by the opinions of other people, those who make up all of the rules.  Abdication of choice, at best.

I must suspend this discussion in the favor of studying for an exam.  You see, the professor has particular answers to this upcoming test.  Like it or not, I will get graded on whether I get it right or wrong.