But this post is not about Bush, or Kerry, or Gore. It is about this story from the Associated Press that discusses the possibility of life on other planets:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101208/D9JVMGR81.html

Some of the article is quite interesting- they have discovered that there are more stars than we knew about previously (three times as many), and that life can consist on much less than previously thought. All of this is very good scientific work, and was done on the basis of the scientific method- heavy on math, calculations, and keen observation. They even found a microbe that can live on arsenic. You must be a pretty astute observer of the natural world to figure that out, as well as a very good biologist.

Then they talk about how finding life on other planets may not mean finding intelligent life, but only little microbes or molds and “It can evolve from there.” Wait a minute now- do you have any observational proof to back that one up? Are there any observations to prove that one life form evolves into another? Of course not- it is only theory; and even by that theory the odds of it taking place before the life is wiped out by some external event are infintessimal. Such speculation is not made by scientists, though in this case it could be argued that it was not said by a scientist but only by a much discredited AP writer, Seth Borenstein, who apparently spends his days waiting for the oceans to boil. And though he freely admits in his subtitle that there is yet no proof of alien life, if they ever find even an alien microbe, I have a feeling he might start waiting anxiously for it to evolve into a wookie.

Yet even these evolutionary assertions are not what I am writing this critique about, at least not primarily. What concerns me much more is this statement:

“What last week’s findings did was both increase the number of potential homes for life and broaden the definition of what life is. That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before, agree 10 scientists interviewed by The Associated Press.”

This paragraph clearly implies that 10 “scientists” agree with two assertions and one conclusion that the Associated Press (no doubt Borenstein himself) inquired about:

1. Last week’s findings increased the number of potential homes for life
2. Last week’s findings broadened the definition of what life is
3. (Therefore) the probability of alien life is higher than before.

It is an essential piece of the nature of truth that it exists before it is discovered. Indeed, the word ‘discovery’ implies this truth- scientists do not observe the natural world based on ever-changing rules, but they apply the truths that they already know to discover new ones. The thought that the discovery itself changes the thing is absurd on its face, but that is exactly what is said here. “findings…increase the number”.

To an intelligent person, the way to say this is that the findings increased the number of known potential homes and broadened the known definition of life. Did these microbes not exist before they were discovered? If not, what was the biologist doing looking for them, getting an arsenic high? Clearly he thought they might exist, and that’s why he (or she) sought them out. The same applies for the planets. Scientists aren’t scanning the outer reaches of known space expecting to prove that there is nothing there, or expecting that their mere searching will cause more planets to pop into being (which is exactly what the article said happened.

Now, perhaps you might say that the scientists didn’t fail at logic, but just at English, and that it is nothing more than a couple carelessly worded sentences. If that is the case, then you are asserting that they don’t mean what they said, in which case, what is left of their credibility? How can we tell what they did mean and what they didn’t mean?. Well, the conclusion that is pulled from these is either another, even more carelessly worded sentence, or they are also really, really bad at math. “Probability for alien life is higher than ever before”. Really? The probability of something we cannot possibly control changed overnight? No- once again, only our perception of that probability changed. If there is alien life, it existed before 3 weeks ago, and these “scientists” had nothing to do with it.

If you think these are just poorly worded sentences, just wait- there are more, and the more of them there are the less likely I am convinced that they don’t really mean what they said. Take this gem (the context is the discovery that some life forms can live without phosphorous): “By making life more likely in extreme places, it increases the number of planets that are potential homes for life, said Kaltenegger, who also works at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.” Eh? That is some conclusion there- you discovered that life can go on in certain places, and therefore you are “making” life more likely? Now in all fairness, it appears they did “train” (according to Borenstein, but who knows what he really meant by the term) the bacterium to live in these places, so is that what Max Plank meant by “making” it more likely? If so, how does Max jump to the conclusion about more planets? Max’s problem is clearly deeper than just mastery of the English (or German) language.

One final example, this quote: “Last week, a Yale University astronomer said he estimates there are 300 sextillion stars – triple the previous number.” Now, when I was in school (and I understand they are teaching a new math now), if two students were asked the same question, and one answered “100 sextillion” and the other answered “300 sextillion”, then one of the students did their sums wrong. But these are scientists in published (and no doubt peer-reviewed) works! There are four logical possibilities that can be concluded from this Yale astronomer’s observations:

1. Last week 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 new stars came into being.
2. The Yale astronomer is wrong.
3. All previous astronomers were wrong.
4. All mentioned astronomers are wrong.

I don’t know about you, but my bet is on #4.

So, what did we learn? You can be really bad at math, probability, and logic; and still be a scientist. Also, you can be a complete failure at English composition, and still have a career writing for the Associate Press.

So two articles for you to read. First, this one from the UK telegraph about a British politician who wants to copy aspects of California’s energy policy (specifically putting information on your energy statement about how much energy your neighbors are using). Next, this one from the US Energy Information Administration about how California’s energy grid actually works.

Now, the Brit is really only talking about one small part of California’s energy plan, but the important point is that California has one of the most progressive energy grids in the country. Read the second article to find out more about it. First note that California has some of the lowest per capita energy usage because the climate is so mild, requiring little heat in the winter and little air conditioning in the summer.

Next we learn that California leads the country in electricity generated from non-hydroelectric renewable resources. Finally we learn the shocker- that California leads the nation in importing electricity. How is this possible if they have low per capita demand and lead in electricity generated from renewable sources? Simple: the so-called renewable sources can provide such a small supply of the overall energy demand that it hardly makes a noticeable dent. As a result, since they thoroughly restrict the production of electricity from traditional sources like nuclear and coal-fired plants within California, they have to import tons of electricity. Some of it is hydro energy from Oregon, and some is even coal-produced energy from a plant in Utah which is owned and operated by the city of Los Angeles, and transmits almost all of its power output to Los Angeles. Lots is also transmitted off the Southwest US grid (New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Texas) into southern California. I really hope we can build power plants here that the Brits will pay for. It will help tremendously to get us out of the recession. In reality, however, the French produce the vast majority of their power with nuclear reactors, and I expect they’ll be the ones providing the English with electricity if the Brits do decide to take the California route.

Remember the blackouts in 2000 and 2001? The article linked above blames causes such as excessive dependence on imported electricity, including hydro electricity from Oregon which was reduced in those summers due to drought conditions in Oregon. It’s a good thing droughts have a limited impact on nuclear plants, and almost none on coal and natural gas plants. What the article doesn’t mention that I remember, is they also beefed up the transmission grid across the southwest US so that we’d be able to pump more electricity, more efficiently to southern California. It does mention how California then further regulated power production and required increased levels of “renewable” energy production.

Wait- I just had a brilliant thought- could we use the structures that we use for offshore oil drilling platforms to build offshore nuclear reactors? You’d solve the two hardest parts of placement of nuclear power plants, which is having a reliable heat sink, and being far away from residential areas. I’m thinking someone else has probably already thought of this. After all, our Navy does it every day.

Anyway, the result of all of this? Californians pay 29.1% more for residential electricity than the national average, and that money is pouring out of California and into the states that are producing that electricity. I only hope that we can get England to buy into the same system

Josh, first of all, thanks very much for responding and “joining the conversation” as they say. I was really hoping you would, and it would have been quite dull if you hadn’t.

So, first to your stick figure-

Sticky people don’t exist in reality, so I’m pretty sure your stick figure won’t do well on the reality scale, and therefore won’t be beautiful. Now, supposing that your stick drawing was representing some deeper truth, and did so very well, then it may indeed be beautiful; but my money is not very beautiful, and certainly a more talented artist presenting the same deeper truth in a more realistic way would have a more beautiful artifact (I’m stealing the use of the word ‘artifact’ from Andy, because it fits very well.. You seem to be inferring that I am saying beauty is black and white. I’m not. It can be everything in between. That there is an absolute standard does not mean it’s a straight pass or fail thing. Perhaps my repeated use of the word “fail” confused that. If so, I apologize.

Consider again morality (for now, consider morality separately from aesthetics). There is that which is perfectly moral (God) among men, no one is perfectly moral besides Christ. One man may be more moral (closer to the absolute standard) and another may be less moral (further from the absolute standard). But all fail to attain it. Similarly, there is an ideal and absolute “perfect” beauty, which we may not be able to attain, but some may draw nearer to it than others.

As to M.C. Escher, I am a fan, but let me address his works a couple different ways. Some of his are fantastical. Consider that one with the never-ending staircase that goes up and up infinitely, but loops around to the beginning. I’ll address those in a moment. The rest (that I’ve seen) are realistic- I’m thinking of that one where he drew a self-portrait of his face in a reflective sphere. That one I definitely think is beautiful on the representational front, and at least good on the reality front- he drew a picture of something that actually existed, and he did so with great talent.

His more fantastical works are what I assume you were asking about. They are representations of generally physical things that cannot exist in the physical world. This is why I call them fantastical. So let’s assume (again, because we might as well) that he drew it exactly as he intended. It clearly is not reality. So, again, by the absolute standard I’ve proposed, it is less than beautiful. That doesn’t mean he’s not a skilled artist (he clearly was, though the hand with the globe represents it much better), just that this picture isn’t particularly beautiful.

Now, as far as morality in aesthetics goes, I’m pretty certain you’ve misunderstood me at least in part. I’m not saying that Escher’s staircase is sinful because it isn’t realistic. Not at all, I’m just saying it isn’t that beautiful. I have used morality as a comparative because it is similar in that there is an absolute standard which you can miss by a little, a moderate amount, or a lot.

Now for where morality does come into play- Ocean’s 11 is a great example. Yes, that movie is immoral, at least certainly in its central theme. It exalts and evil that should be vilified (stealing). Now, does the fact that you liked it mean that you’re evil? Well, if you took pleasure in the portrayal of evil, then yes, it does. If you see sin and think “oh boy, they got him good that time”, then yes- that is most certainly your sin nature, and not your new nature in Christ. At the same time, liking the underdog aspect to the story, of the little guy going up against seemingly impossible odds but pulling it off, that is not evil at all, in fact, it is virtuous and honorable. As Christians we should critically examine everything we see and discern the good from the evil. I would expect you’d agree with this?

Now, as far as not knowing the artists goal with the artifact, I addressed this- I thought pretty thoroughly. If what is represented is a good representation of something that is true, we don’t necessarily need to know the artists’ intent to judge its beauty. It is possible that the artist had a subject that was not reality, but then he mis-represented the unreality and ended up representing reality, but this is pretty unlikely. When I see Rembrandt’s picture of Abraham’s sacrifice. I’m reasonably confident that he did a good job representing a Biblical scene, not a crummy job drawing a loaf of bread.

 Are there cases where we must suspend judgment? Absolutely, but this doesn’t imply that the standard is not absolute. Again, let’s look to morality as an example. You see a man shoot another. Was the act moral? You must withhold judgement until you have more context. You may never get that context and therefore never know if the act was moral, but that doesn’t mean that morality is a non-absolute. Similar with art. I might never know whether Michelangelo intended the David to glorify God’s creation or whether he intended for David to be an excessive glorification of man (in which case it is much less beautiful, because the subject fails to match reality). Yet, even if I never know that answer, it doesn’t mean the answer doesn’t exist.

Finally, you used a couple of phrases that edge toward circular reasoning. You referenced a few times that “most people would/wouldn’t think such and such is beautiful”. This is irrelevant if there is an absolute standard. The people can be wrong (again, people are often wrong regarding the absolute standard of morality). It is only relevant if the standard is relative, which is what you’re arguing for, so in that way you are assuming what must be proven.

Over Thanksgiving, after a brief lecture by one cousin regarding music theory, another asked the question that is probably the chief question in all of philosophy: “Why?” Why is music constructed in this way and not another? Are there really laws that determine what makes a “good” piece of music? After all, everyone has different tastes in music, so doesn’t that imply that music (and aesthetics in general) is good relatively and not absolutely? And, if this is so, then western music theory is just one opinion, and there could be several (indeed infinite) others. I reject this assessment. Though there is certainly room for a variety of tastes in music (and art in general) there are absolute principles that define what makes art good.

What is Beauty?

Defining beauty in specific can be difficult; but in the abstract, it is easy. Beauty is that which is pleasing to the eye. On the surface, this seems to be a relative definition. That is to say, that it is obvious that different people (different eyes) find different things to be beautiful, so if beauty is that which pleases the eye, it is relative to the eye being pleased. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, this is (by definition) a perceptual relativity, not an actual one. For though two people might look at the same piece of art and disagree as to whether or not it is beautiful, they will generally not disagree as to what they actually see- their disagreement will revolve around their perception and analysis of it. If they see different things, at least one of them must have a deficiency in his eyes. Now, let us assume that this is not the case, but they do see the same thing, but have different opinions about it. Since the art is not changed, the origin of the difference must lie in the beholders. Thus we see that the art itself is an absolute, but the perception of it is relative.

So then, if perception is relative, how can we determine whether or not art can have absolute beauty? And if it can, how can we determine the degree to which a piece of art is beautiful? The answer is twofold, as there are two absolute standards by which all forms of the aesthetic arts can be judged. They are not independent, but work together. Every work of art can be judged on either one or both standards, but true beauty is always based on the comparison against both standards. These two standards are those of representation and reality. Representation refers to the ability the artist has to represent what it is they seek to represent. All art seeks to represent something. It might be a physical portrayal (either of something real or imagined), or an idea or ideal, or even a feeling. However, every piece of art seeks to represent something. Even a blank canvas or a silent orchestra, when presented as art, represent something. For the purposes of this argument, I’ll refer to that something as the subject of the artwork. If I am painting a portrait, my subject is the person I’m painting. If I’m writing an abstract poem representing my thoughts about love, then love is my subject. If I am writing a symphony (or piece of pop-music, if you prefer) to show that I really like blueberry Tootsie pops, then my love of blueberry Tootsie pops is my subject. I use Reality to refer to whether the subject the artist is trying to represent corresponds to reality. So, “Representation” is the measure of how like the piece of art is to the subject. “Reality” is the measure of how like the subject is to how things truly are. Perfect beauty (in art), then, is when both standards are met to perfection, where the art perfectly represents the subject, and the subject perfectly corresponds to reality.

Representation

This is perhaps the easier side to understand when it comes to art and beauty. If two painters are painting the same tree, and are attempting to simply show the tree as it looks, the one who paints a truer representation of the tree is the more talented painter. This is an over-simplification. Perhaps the painter desires not to merely show the tree as it is, but as a tree should be. Very well, but still if the two are trying to represent the same subject, the one who represents the subject more truly is the more talented. If they are trying to represent different things, it becomes more difficult to analyze who is more talented, but this is not to say it is impossible. Ultimately, the artist has an idea in their mind of what they are trying to create (the subject). The more closely what they create resembles the subject, the better they have done at representation, and the more talented they are.

So far, my discussion of representation has been about representation of physical things. This is only because it is easier to discuss, but the same principles are true when representing abstracts. Let’s say two composers are writing music to reflect their ideas of friendship. The one whose music more closely reflects his own idea of friendship is the more talented artist. More abstract concepts such as these are where disagreements are more likely to come. This is for two reasons. First, with modern technology, physical art can create nearly perfect representations of the physical world with very little effort. You can take a picture of a physical thing, and you have an instant representation of it. With the right lasers, computers, and robots, you could probably even create a very good sculpture without any artist whatsoever. For this reason, most art today has moved beyond mere representation of physical realities. Second, when trying to represent a physical anything, it is much easier to tell if someone has done a good job of it. There is not much room for perceptive relativity- when it comes to representing more abstract ideas, there is much more room for argument because it can be impossible to tell exactly what the artist was attempting to depict. Still, a slow, sonorous, song emphasizing bass will always be a poor representation of a happy idea such as friendship, and a quick, chirpy, piccolo will never represent well something serious like remorse or death.

It is also quite possible that nearly identical pieces of art might be very good at representation or very poor at it. This can be the case if they have different subjects. Consider: if a child paints a picture of their house, they are almost certainly attempting mere duplication- they see the house, and they are trying to paint something that looks like it (their subject is the house in physical reality). Modern artists often paint something that might look very much like children’s art (we’ve all seen pieces of “exquisite” art that look like something done by a kindergartener). However, in this case they are not attempting the mere duplication- they are trying to also create something with more meaning (their subject is childish innocence which is protected by the concept of “home”) and, we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that the kindergarten-looking painting they create is exactly what they intended, and therefore good at representation, whereas the child’s sloppy painting is not what they intended and therefore poor at representation.

Now, all of this on representation is only to say that we judge the artist’s talent based on how well they represent that which they are trying to represent. Sometimes we have to take the artist’s word that what they have created is indeed what they were trying to create. We have not yet made any judgement about that idea in their head that they are trying to represent. That is the subject of the second standard, Reality.

Reality

Again, I use reality to refer to whether that thing the artist is representing (the subject) corresponds to reality. Reality is absolute. If you don’t believe reality is absolute, we can have several other futile arguments while you try to deny what is plain as day (except that you may not admit that you believe it is day), but that’s for another discussion. For now, we’ll assume that reality is absolute. What are the implications of this? First, physical reality is absolute- The house that the child paints is not of square dimensions at one moment, and at the same moment of triangular dimensions. No, A is A, and if the subject is a physical representation, the subject should be exactly what really is. Simple enough, but again, the flat physical realities are the easy part. When I say they are the easy part, I mean that they are the easiest to judge in terms of whether the subject corresponds to reality. Remember that when we are judging on the Reality standard, we are comparing the subject to what really is. We are making no judgement about the final product (that belongs to the standard of Representation). Once again, more abstract concepts are where there is more room for controversy; after all, people disagree as to abstract realities. However, even abstract realities follow the law of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time, nor can two mutually exclusive statements be true at the same time.

When it comes to abstract realities, there are two types. The first type is that which is, by its nature, non-absolute. Earlier I mentioned composing a symphony about my love of blueberry Tootsie pops. This would be a non-absolute abstract. It still follows the law of non-contradiction. I cannot love and not love blueberry Tootsie pops at the same time. However, it is hardly a universal absolute. For the most part, these non-absolute abstracts are pretty dull and irrelevant. This is precisely because of their non-universal nature. I might have a pure and unadulterated love of blueberry Tootsie pops, and write a symphony that perfectly represents this love, but it isn’t relevant to anyone who doesn’t share that love of blueberry Tootsie pops. Does it meet my test of reality? Yes, so long as I really do love blueberry Tootsie pops that much. Does it meet my test of representation, yes. So is it beautiful? Yes, but it is also irrelevant to everyone who doesn’t share my deep appreciation of blueberry Tootsie pops. So much for that silliness, let’s move on to universal abstracts.

Universal Abstracts- questions of morality

When I refer to universal abstracts, I mean those abstract concepts that are relevant to everyone, ideas such as life and death, friendship and animosity, order and chaos, loyalty and betrayal, innocence and depravity. These are concepts that are not only universally relevant, but also have real and absolute moral value. What I mean by this is that loyalty is absolutely morally superior to betrayal. These are absolute moral standards set not by man, but by God. Art that corresponds to reality has these in their proper place. This is an idea that can easily be confused. I do not mean to propose that beautiful art cannot portray things that are not beautiful or morally good. It can (and sometimes must) because reality contains things that are ugly and morally evil. What I am proposing is that they must be put in their proper place. The test of reality in abstracts is met when the good abstracts are portrayed as good, and evil abstracts are portrayed as evil.

Let me take an example of this from the movies, specifically “The Dark Knight”. The Joker is absolutely depraved and evil, and he is shown as such. Thus, even though the movie is treating the very dark subject of evil, it puts evil in its proper place. Let me take another movie: “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”. This movie is trash and fails the test of reality because throughout the movie the protagonist is committing rampant acts of immorality, but they are shown as being good. In the end, Button abandons his wife and daughter, and it is presented as being the right thing to do. Just as in “The Dark Knight” it treats a dark subject, but elevates evil. Some movies are trash because they do the opposite of this. In the Johnny Cash biopic “Walk the Line”, the family and friends of Cash’s first wife are portrayed as being somehow narrow-minded because they disapprove of Cash’s adultery and divorce. The disapproval of sinful living is a good thing, but it is shown as bad.

Now, a single piece of art can certainly pass the reality test in some areas, and fail in others. Going back to “Walk the Line”, other parts of that movie passed that test of reality with flying colors, such as showing the disastrous effects of substance abuse. Again, this is showing an evil (substance abuse) but putting it in its proper place. So far all of the examples I’ve given have referred to questions that are pretty clearly moral. However, this need not necessarily be the case. There are at least two other important questions that come to mind in terms of reality, though I’m sure we could come up with many more.

Universal Abstracts- amoral questions

The first question that is not necessarily moral is that of preeminence. God is preeminent over all, and man preeminent over the rest of creation (nature). Art that elevates nature to a level on par with man fails the test of reality, because nature is not above man, but subservient to him. Similarly, art that places man on par with God or above God fails the test of reality for the same reason. Many (not all) modern praise choruses fail in this way by focusing not on God (Who is the proper focus of worship) but on how man is impacted by religious experience. Man-centered worship of God fails to be beautiful because in reality God is the center of man’s worship. Similarly, art that levels man and nature fail on the same account. This is not to say that the artists are not talented- they may do a very good job at representation, but they fail (at least partially) at reality. Again, let me emphasize the word “partially”. Praise of nature’s beauty is not, by itself, wrong or out-of-place. Nature is deserving of praise as a creation of God, but when nature is elevated to a level equal with man, that is not reality, for scripture clearly tells us that nature is in its own image while man is in the image of God. Similarly, art that elevates nature higher to the point where nature is on par with God is even further from reality.

The second question that is not necessarily moral is that of order versus chaos. The earth was created in a state of order, and chaos came with sin after the fall. Thus, chaos and disorder have their place in abstract art, but must be put in their proper place. Chaos exists, but it is not a good or praiseworthy thing. Art that treats disorder as the good, or as the goal fails the reality test because in reality chaos is the result of the fall. Art that treats order as good and chaos (or disorder, or randomness) as not good is beautiful because this is an accurate representation of reality.

Conclusion

We can see then, that beauty is absolute because it is measured against two standards which are absolute. The first is the standard of representation, or how well the subject is reflected in the art. Beautiful art reflects the intended subject. The standard of representation is absolute, but might be unknown, as it can be impossible to define the intended subject of the artist, and thus impossible to tell how well the subject is reflected in the work. The second standard is that of reality, or how well the subject reflects what actually is. When dealing with physical reality, this standard is obviously absolute because physical reality is absolute. When dealing with abstracts, it is also absolute, even when the subject is not universal, since even non-universal abstracts adhere to the law of non-contradiction. When dealing with universal abstracts (which are much more common), reality is clearly an absolute because questions of morality and created order and preeminence are absolute. Therefore, beauty is accomplished in art when the subject corresponds to reality, and the artwork represents the subject. Even if we cannot completely judge the degree of representation, we can still judge whether the artwork represents anything the corresponds to reality. If it does, than the artwork might* be beautiful. If it does not, then the artwork is not beautiful. Because we may not be able to identify the intended subject with certainty, we cannot determine whether the failure is a failure of representation or of reality, but we can know with certainty that there was a failure of one of the two.

*I say “might” because is one final case- where the subject fails to correspond to reality and the artwork fails to represent the subject. It is possible (however unlikely) that as a result of this double-failure, the artwork represents a subject that does correspond to reality, though as a complete accident, as it must (by definition) be some subject other than that intended by the artist. By our definition, this would not be beautiful in the absolute, though it might be mistaken for beauty by an observer who does not know what the artist intended. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but without an independent and correct standard of the time (a working clock), you’ll never know when that is.

The topic has been on my mind as I have been making my way (rather slowly) through a biography of John Adams (by Page Smith). Adams had a firm belief that while people were equal in that they had the same Creator and were therefore deserving of equal protection under the law. His ideas of equality ended there. His judicial philosophy made this especially evident. Adams was went to Harvard and studied law under one of the premier Boston lawyers of the day. He had a large legal library, and used it to his advantage in trying cases. In those days reference books were much more uncommon, and simply having access to particular works could give a lawyer a considerable advantage. Specifically, he would have knowledge of specific precedents that the opposing side (and even the judge) might not have knowledge of, and he would use this to win cases.

There was also a philosophy of that time which Adams referred to as “leveling” which sought to bring the lower classes up and treat them as if they really were as good as the upper classes. Specifically offensive to Adams was that any rural farmer had access to the courts and could bring suit against his neighbor or anyone else who had wronged him. Adams, after becoming an influential member of the Boston Bar, lobbied the law makers to restrict access to the courts so that only members of the bar would be able to try a case. To him, the law was such a sacred thing, that it must be protected from the riff-raff.

Through my interactions with a few young lawyers (my brother certain not included), I have seen this same level self-serving arrogance. I can stomach such an attitude from some professions (in fact, I almost expect it from senators) but it is absolutely out of place in the area of justice. For this reason, I have decided to write some of my thoughts on the nature of justice.

Note specifically that I am speaking here exclusively of human justice. This is discussed separately from that issue of divine justice. Though we can (and must) use what we know of divine justice to discuss human justice descriptively, we cannot apply the principles blindly when discussing human justice prescriptively. Human judges, juries, and lawyers are all susceptible to fault. God isn’t. Therefore, when we discuss how a justice system should be, we must include safeguards to allow for the correction of these human errors. Additionally, I am talking mostly about criminal law (though in the Biblical references, the two are often inter-twined).

First, What is Justice?

One part of my moral philosophy is that any virtue cannot be defined by negation , and cannot be defined exclusively in human terms. All virtues come from the Lord of virtue. For instance, the virtue of patience might be defined as that which is similar to that part of God’s nature that is long-suffering in awaiting an outcome, without becoming discontent. Similarly, Justice is that part of God’s nature that deals with the fair punishment of evil-doers. In the modern context, this becomes of the utmost importance. If we look in the scriptures, one of the most common contexts of the term is when the poor and oppressed beg a judge to give them justice. In the Psalms we see David begging God to give him justice against his oppressors. In the gospels we see the parable of the persistent widow who begged the judge over and over again to give her justice. We can see very clearly that the idea of justice is that an evil-doer did wrong to a victim, and the victim comes before the judge to seek justice. That they may be restored or have their vengeance, etc. In the Mosaic law, we see this very clearly defined in several instances. Every letter of the law had its consequences if it was broken, and the victims were to go before the judge (first only Moses, later the seventy elders) to receive justice against the one who wronged them. It is crucial that the victim and the evil-doer are considered to be equal in the eyes of the law. Most modern societies at least pay lip-service to this principle, but a well-placed bribe can often overcome the speed bump of a judge’s integrity.

Even when we move out of scripture, we see the same meaning for justice- it is the punishment of evildoers. Even societies that defined evil-doer in an incorrect way still called it justice when those who they claimed were evil-doers were punished. You need look no further than the Salem Witch trials. This, in fact, is a very interesting point (which I first saw from Lewis, though I don’t remember which book). The infamous Salem Witch Trials are probably one of the classic examples of what people would consider “injustice”. People who had really done nothing wrong were publicly humiliated and executed on the flimsiest of evidence. However, let’s look a bit more closely at the situation. Why were witch trials a bad idea? The most obvious answer is because we don’t believe there are such things as witches, at least not in the sense that there are women (or men) who can appear as an apparition and pinch and torture and pinch you to get you to write in their devil-book, or who can bewitch others until they die. It is only because such people don’t exist that these trials were unjust. Did such a person exist, I would want to execute them after a very short trial, for fear that they would bewitch the prosecutor, judge, and anyone else who got in their way. The point is, you can see that even here, justice is defined as punishment for doing evil. In all cases, the one demanding justice is the victim. In more modern societies, it is believed that the entire society demands justice, because all are injured by the criminal offender.

Now, this definition of justice seems very simple- why must we go to pains to define it? In modern times, we’ve seen the usage of “justice” change. You will hear references to a “societal injustice”. Generally, this is used to mean that society as a whole did not give someone a “fair shake”. The supposed victim cannot site any specific law or regulation violated by any specific person, but only a vague sense that society has treated them unfairly. Such victims (especially when well trained to do so) can evoke much sympathy from the general populace. Since they were not the victim of a specific wrong doing by a specific person, they have no specific person against whom to demand justice. Instead, society at whole must pay. And how must society pay? By government changing regulations to the advantage of the victimized person or group of people, or by a wealth transfer from the “guilty” society (usually the wealthy) to the victim class. Such a thing is far from justice. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The wealthy person whose taxes are raised has done no wrong, yet he must pay the price anyway. This is not far from the injustice of the Salem Witch trials. In fact, it is worse- the supposed witches were accused of violating a law (the law banning acts of witchcraft) whereas the wealthy individuals were accused of no specific crime at all.

If Justice is the punishment of evil-doers, how do we define an evil-doer?

Here is where we must begin to differentiate between human and divine justice. An evil-doer is one who does evil acts. That is, of course, a simple tautology, but it removes one potential pitfall: justice, as I have defined it, punishes only evil acts- it makes no attempt to punish evil thoughts. Divine justice can punish evil thoughts because the Lord who created our minds knows our thoughts. Man cannot judge thoughts, and therefore cannot justly punish them. Here we see another breach of true justice in the modern American system- “hate crime” legislation which punishes an equal act more harshly if the judge or jury believes the criminal had particularly bad thoughts towards the victim, especially if the victim is a member of a protected class (usually based on race, religion, or sexual preference).

But, back to evil acts. Divine justice will define an evil act as any that is contrary to the moral will of God, as revealed through general and special revelation. Naturally, a human justice system cannot depend on this. Humans disagree as to the moral will of God, some denying its existence completely (why those people would ask for justice or defend themselves against the accusations of another is a topic for another essay). Instead, we generally have laws agreed upon by the members of a society that define what acts are evil enough to be punishable by law (how we come to those laws is also the topic for another essay). Note that there are several acts which people generally believe to be wrong, but not wrong enough that we believe they should be punished by law. Any rational person would agree that it is wrong to lie to your boss. But, our laws differentiate some lies from others. If I lie to my boss by telling her I had eggs for breakfast when really I had bacon, this is not punishable by law. If I lie by saying on my resume that I graduated Summa Cum Laude from Georgia Tech with a degree in Electrical Engineering when really I eked out a 2.3 at the University of North Carolina at Asheville with a degree in elementary education, that might (depending on the situation) be punishable by law. If I lie to my boss by saying that I worked 55 hours last week when really I worked 35, that is fraud and is definitely punishable by law (though in North Carolina, it will not prohibit you from being elected to public office).

In what manner should evil-doers be punished?

There are particular punishments that will always be the topic of debate (such as corporal and capital punishment), but the general principle is that punishments ought to be established before the commission of the crime, and be equally administered to all criminals, regardless of their status in society (a politician and a working stiff should both receive the same punishment for intoxicated vehicular manslaughter).

Safeguards and the rights of the accused

The specific debate that inspired the writing of this essay dealt with the rights of the accused. In these United States, we are all guaranteed to a quick and expedient trial, and due process under the law. Interestingly, our Bill of Rights spends the majority of its time discussing the rights of the accused. This is interesting because when it comes to forming a government from a clean state, the rights of the accused seems like the sort of thing that would get one sentence, and we’d spend more time discussing how to raise taxes and whether we need a standing army and navy.

However, to our founding fathers, the rights of the accused were of the utmost importance, because they were some of the primary rights they were denied as subjects to the crown. We have the right to face our accusers (though again, this somehow doesn’t apply in the societal injustice argument). We have the right to a jury of our peers. We have the right to due process of law. Though we can be sworn to tell the whole truth, we have the right to remain silent in order to not impugn ourselves. We have protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have the right to not be tried twice for the same crime. These, then, are the rights of the accused. Why do we have them? This goes back to the difference between discussing divine and human law. If God were our only judge and jury, we would need no rights of the accused. We could rest assured that the Lord Who is Just would (indeed could only) do the right thing. But instead, we live in a world where a prosecutor or investigator may have impure motives, so due process is given to ensure that prosecutors do not cheat in order to make guilty the innocent.

For instance, part of due process is unreasonable search and seizure. The application in the American justice system is that the state must obtain a warrant to seize your person (an arrest warrant) or to search your property (a search warrant). Specifically, our justice system demands that search warrants specify what is to be searched, and what is being looked for. Why is this important? Because it prevents an oppressive investigator from pestering an innocent citizen with unreasonable searches and seizures. Say I beat the DA at a poker game, and he gets angry at me. Without this protection (on which many cases are overturned), that DA could hound me constantly turning my house upside down looking for evidence of an imaginary crime. He could arrest and detain me for no reason, etc.

Since it is evident that we need these restrictions on the prosecutors, it is also important that we are able to enforce them. Therefore, we have established that if evidence is obtained by violating these laws, that evidence is inadmissible in court. Let’s say in the same situation as above, the DA found (on his third search of my house) a deck of marked cards. He then decides to arrest me and beats me until I confess that I used the trick cards to beat him at poker. Even if this is how I beat him, a civilized society cannot tolerate this sort of misconduct- it is the begging of a very slippery slope. The prosecutor has taken justice into his own hands, circumventing the law. If he’s right, and I cheated, then what he did isn’t (from a moral perspective) so bad. But he is fallible, and if he is wrong than he has harassed an innocent man. Therefore, evidence obtained illegally must be thrown out in order to guarantee that such oppressive acts do not take place.

Set the Guilty Free? Or Punish the Innocent?

This is the ultimate question that must be answered when dealing with human justice. Again, we need not worry about this when it comes to divine justice. But when it comes to human justice, we know that people make errors, and the American justice system holds as sacred the concept of the “assumption of innocence”. This is to say that unless a person is shown to be guilty, we must assume their innocence. This leans very heavily towards the side of setting the guilty free. When discussing this issue, I asked my friend “Do you agree that it is better to set 10 guilty men free than to punish one innocent person?” She agreed that it is better to set the guilty free, but wasn’t sure about the 10:1 ratio.

Now, in fairness to this friend, because of the medium of communication (instant messaging), I don’t know if her comment about the ratio was meant facetiously or not. The question really isn’t about the ratio, it is about the philosophy behind it. Modern societies differ on this question. To protect what we call a civilized society, we must punish the guilty. If the guilty walk free, we are soon in an anarchy. Moreover, to protect a free society, we must set the innocent free. If the innocent are punished, we are soon in some form of either despotism or a court-ruled oligarchy.

For this reason, it is not an easy question, but it falls precisely in line with other equally important issues of political philosophy. Which is worse- too much government, or too little? Consider that punishment is a positive act, meaning it requires affirmative action. On the other hand, setting free is a negative act- it is the absence of action. So, we can see that those who would prefer too much government would say that it is better that the innocent are punished than that the guilty are ever set free. On the other hand, those who prefer too little government would say that it is better that the guilty are set free than that the innocent are punished. Now obviously, no one goes around proclaiming that we need “too much” government. What I mean is more easily defined in terms of how should we err. Those who say we should err on the side of government action (on the side of despotism, if you will) will also say we should err on the side of punishment. Those who say we should err on the side of government inaction (on the side of anarchy) will also say we should err on the side of setting free.

Now, the above is purely descriptive, not prescriptive. No reasonable politician goes around saying we should err on the side of despotism or on the side of anarchy. However, the very founding of America was to err on the side of anarchy, of government inaction. As much as Limbaugh may take him out of context and malign him for it, President Obama was very much in the right to say that our constitution is a document of “negative rights”, meaning that it (specifically the Bill of Rights) says what the government cannot do. Where Obama was wrong was by thinking this is a bad thing. Our entire founding was to favor government inaction as the better policy, and so our justice system has historically been on the side of favor of setting people free rather than punishing the innocent. Now, I agree that these are the sides we should err on. However, it is obvious to state that it is preferable to not err. That it is preferable to err on the side of government inaction is not to say that we should jump headlong into complete government inaction. It is possible that there are areas where our government doesn’t do enough, or where our courts set too many people free.

Finally, I will comment on the current trend, and it goes back to the concept “societal injustice”. This ties in very well with what I’ve been saying about the ultimate judicial and government philosophy. The idea that society (particularly the wealthy) must be punished (taxed) for the benefit of imagined and vague offenses committed against a victim class, is erring very far on the side of punishing the innocent and of too much government action. This is just to once again show that those two will move (generally) in the same direction.

But the greater problem I’ve had with these commentators is that they always leave out a man who, in my opinion, was the greatest orator in American history. Moreover, I would argue that his best known speech is the best I have ever read. Though we have no recordings, we do have the comments from the people of the day who referred to him as a “modern Cicero” and that his speeches stirred the politicians and common man alike.

In the spring of 1775, the American colonies were near a boiling over point. For ten years they had sought a redress of grievances from the British Parliament. Parliament had levied taxes on the American people directly, an act that American statesmen held as a violation of their colonial charters and of the British constitution, which guarantees rights to all British subjects. Specifically, the Americans of the day saw themselves as subjects to the king (George III), but not under the authority of parliament. As they had no representation in Parliament, they argued that it was illegal for Parliament to directly interfere in their business. If taxes must be raised, the people should be taxed indirectly- meaning that the king should demand a certain sum of money from the colonies, and the colonies could decide for themselves the best way to raise the funds.

However, as you will read below, appeals to Parliament and the king were widely ignored. Interference from the mother country became greater, not less. Britain began to moor warships in Boston Harbor, and even raid the American merchant marine. The focus on Boston put the American colonies in a perilous position. If the center of American commerce was lost, certainly the British would not stop there. Though the colonies had formerly seen themselves as separate and independent, they were now seeing that they must act as a united force if they were not to lose the liberties they had enjoyed for so many years.

In March of 1775, efforts were underway to have each of the colonies draft militia to aid the Patriots of Massachusetts. The Virginia Revolutionary Committee was debating this very question. Virginia Patriot, Colonel George Washington, had already vowed to hire, feed, and supply an army out of his own pocket for the cause of liberty if necessary.

The speech below was given on March 23. Within a month, the British would attempt to raid the weapons caches and munitions storehouses of the Massachusetts militia at Lexington and Concord. They would be rebuffed and return to take military control of Boston. The combined, mustered forces of the colonies would then besiege Boston until they had driven the British back to sea.

The speech below proved to be a turning point. Had Virginia not agreed to arm its militia in support of Massachusetts, we cannot know how history would be different. But, due to the fervent pleadings of heroes such as Washington and Jefferson, the delegates had begun to understand that if they did not defend Boston, Richmond might well be next. However, there were still reconciliationistss in the assembly- men who believed that if they remained loyal to Great Britain, perhaps Parliament or George III would yet relent.

After one of these pro-reconciliation speeches, Patriot leader Patrick Henry rose and gave the following address:

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

“Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, Sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

“Three millions of People, armed in the Holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable. and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!

“It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery! Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

As historians record, at the close of this address, the assembly was greatly moved and shouted fervently in favor of the motion. It passed, the Virginians supported their Massachusetts brethren, and the great struggle for American Liberty went beyond mere words and began in earnest.

Let us today remember this courageous spirit and not fail to list Patrick Henry in his proper place as one of history’s greatest orators.

My personal life is what I prefer it to be, and I prefer it to be dull. Not desiring to bore anyone who reads, I aim to avoid the topics of my personal life and stick to themes that are interesting any who are like me. By “like me”, I refer to those who prefer the think. Were I so disposed, I could refer to us as “We the thinking”

To begin then, I quote from one of the great philosophers of the American Revolution, and perhaps the greatest pamphleteer, Thomas Paine:

From “Common Sense” (February 14, 1776)

“Some writers have so confounded society with government. as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistably obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and the greatest benefit, is peferable to all others.”

These are the words that spurred our political forefathers out of the toleration of tyranny and into the resolve of revolution. If you don’t know what words like “induce” and “bowers” and “patron” and “wherefore” mean, allow me to summarize:

Men are by nature wicked and predisposed to wickedness. We voluntarily form governments in order to restrain our own wickedness. In doing so, we pay a price. We give up little bits of our liberty in the form of taxes and obedience to laws. In return, we gain justice- the evil are punished, and civilized society is preserved. As a result, the liberty we give up is less than that which would be lost to an anarchy, so a just government is preferable to none at all.

Without government, we are left with anarchy. Political philosophers of Paine’s day knew what has always been true and is still true today- that it is impossible to preserve anarchy. Men will form into tribes or clans to protect their belongings, and before too long the strongest leader of the strongest clan will become the established tyrant. This is how despots rise. This took longer with spears and swords than it takes with AK-47′s, but the principle remains the same. The iron fist of the despot and the thievery of the villain are what Paine means by the miseries we might expect in a country without a government.

His main point, then, is that if a government to which you voluntarily yield takes away your liberties like the tyrant or plunders you like the villain, you are worse off than you would be under the tyrant who forces you to yield. You gave something up for the protection of the rest, but there is no protection. You have furnished the means of your own punishment.

Now, Paine is not altogether correct. Society does not bring happiness in any state. In fact, this is internally inconsistent with the rest of his arguments resting on the inherent evil of man. If man is inherently evil, then society with evil men would not necessarily lead to happiness.

It would also be a mistake to infer from his reasoning (and this is the inference towards which he leads) that any government which treats the people with tyranny and villainy must be thrown off, because the people under that government can only improve their position. This is obviously not always the case. By throwing off the shackles of government you may satisfy your own conscience to say, at least, that you are not voluntarily enslaved, but there is no guarantee that the new master will be any less harsh than the former.

Given all of this, he is, on the whole, correct. Government can and should only exist to restrain vice in order to protect our liberties that remain. These, of course, are the basic tenants of justice and protection. Government cannot add to the happiness of society. It can only do its best to protect the happiness we already have.

There are two important and inarguable tenants of government attempting to make people happy:

1. Government can only give away that which it first took from another.

2. Government maintains an administrative expense (and a high one) which means that it will never be able to give out as much as it takes in- it consumes part of the transfer en route. It is like passing a piece of paper through a fire. Though the paper will not be completely destroyed, a part will be consumed and what is left is less than what was originally passed.

Now consider what happens when government seeks to make one person (or group of people) happy. It must do so by taking from someone else. If government takes from someone else, that other person must give it freely, or be compelled to give it. To give freely is charity, and if a rational person is charitable, they give to the recipients of charity themselves, and there is no need for a government middle man who will only serve to guarantee that that which is given is less than that which is received. Therefore, it is not given freely, but under compulsion. If you don’t believe me, stop paying your taxes and see what happens next.

So what then have we done? Have we increased the happiness of society? By no means. The productive are taxed under compulsion, their liberties wrestled away. The unproductive are made dependent upon government bureuacracy, their independent spirit given away.