Excerpts

Morality

Often we refer to things within reality—things within the natural law—as good things. We say that one thing is good and another thing is bad. We refer to one outcome as better and another as worse. It is evident, however, that good only makes sense inasmuch as it relates to bad, and that better only has meaning inasmuch as it relates to worse. By what standard are all of these relative terms understood?

The basis of this answer is something often referred to as morality. But what do we consider moral, and how is it so? More often than not, we consider morality relative to our perception and opinion. We consider one person’s internal moral compass part of one sector of society’s perception, and another’s moral compass part of another sector of society’s perception. But to say such means that my version of good and bad could very well be different from yours.

The conservative bases an understanding of morality not on opinion, but on reality, and thus on the natural law. And, in this manner, morality must be a naturally known fact of society. C. S. Lewis wrote on this:

This law was called the law of nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war [World War II] were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at the bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced?

Lewis’s statement here is not that we are born moral, but that each individual learns through reason a sense of what moral is. For example, we know from an early age that lying is bad. But if there is no moral compass, and if each human being does not have a moral compass—or even if the individual’s perception of morality is based on opinion—then all accusations about lying come to nothing. Lying could be perfectly acceptable to some and not acceptable to others. Lying becomes acceptable, and the orthodox liar (if there is such a thing) becomes equally as welcomed as the orthodox truth-teller.

What’s more, there is no justice in such a society. If there is no moral compass, then we are free to do anything. Moreover, if there is no moral compass, then a rule of law is pointless because there is no absolute right and wrong, as dictated by ideals such as “Thou shall not steal” or “Thou shall not murder.”

In other words, a society in which there is no moral compass leaves us with this: No law. No justice. No beliefs. Of course, such a look at a society that has no moral compass looks quite unappealing to most.

C. S. Lewis wrote: “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong you will find the same man going back on this [in] a moment. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one on him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair.’”

Of course, many people beg for answers as to the necessity of acknowledging the moral compass. The answer is simple: If there is a moral right and wrong, then it is key that we strive to do what is right. If there is a unique, definite, and strong moral rule, then it is only relevant that we know, use, and promote it. Therefore, conservatives believe that it is only moral to have a rule of law. It is only moral, according to the realist conservative, that there be boundaries for government and freedoms for people, as well as laws that reflect what is truly moral and what is truly good. This idea that morality is made up of set standards is known in and of itself as the theory of categorical morality.

Some in the governmental expansionist camp use—in a very untruthful manner—such a belief in a rule of law as an excuse. If it’s a law, these people ask, then by morality’s relationship to the rule of law, isn’t it automatically good? This question is twisted. The rule of law, just like all other aspects of society, is as open to scrutiny as any other aspect of human society. Just because a government official passes a law does not make it justifiable. This is why government expansionism cannot have a moral compass as a centerpiece of its ideology. The moral compass limits the goodness of government to what is truly right, as well as making the government open to scrutiny, and according to utopianism and the other aspects of the government expansionist ideology, government must be good all the time.

Moreover, the preaching of morality and religion is seen by the government expansionist as part of the evil advancement of the bourgeois perspective. This puts morality in the crosshairs of the government expansionist as something expansionism needs to destroy just as much as its proposed promulgator.