Sez Who? 2

In an earlier essay (May 29, 2011) I wrote about free speech and its defense, concluding that all speech should be permitted and that, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis,

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I noted Justice Robert Jackson's words as well

The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

While I still agree with those sentiments, I am aware that I didn't spend any time on an important underlying problem – the plethora of “speakers.” What I mean is not that everyone is talking at once, although that's certainly true – and, sadly, there is “a good deal of rubbish” around – but that there are so many who are “experts” and we are getting our instructions and our marching orders from more and more of them. And obeying those in charge is even more complex. So determining what is valid and what isn't often presents difficulties. I have my own views in this regard, but I realize that others may disagree. Nonetheless, I shall present my appraisal of the various sources of “the rules of the road” – those telling us what to do, or pretending to be more virtuous than we, and to know more than we do. To one degree or another they direct our thinking and our actions, though they often contradict each other.

Among the oldest standards, and the ones considered by so many to be the least rational, are those that are spiritual in origin. The Bible and other religious codes contain the absolutes that we are to accept, because they are “right,” and whatever contradicts them is wrong. By and large they don't accept the idea of cultural diversity and contrary opinions, and the responses of believers to disagreements are a blind eye and ear in the face of perverse notions, tolerance, argumentation, and war. Luckily my religion boasts the correct rules and I am thus the bearer of ageless wisdom. But, I suppose, you feel the same way, even if our traditions don't overlap. (I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it. PS – I'm not interested in war.)

According to the religious approach, the absolutes were announced by G-d, and are universal. There's no such thing as “moral diversity.” Right's right and wrong's wrong. But not everyone holds this view. (They're wrong of course.) So we've wound up in a situation of national anarchy. Every country makes its own rules, and they usually differ from each other and from the religious absolutes. That's what I mean by “national anarchy.” Secular laws are whatever the legislators want them to be – what they or their contributors find the most appealing – without any necessary linkage to propriety and justice. No. that's a misstatement. Since they make the rules, they define “propriety” and “justice.” It's whatever they say it is, and you'd better do what they say.

But even that's not correct, at least not in our country. And I presume elsewhere as well. Our legislators set goals and leave it to others – unelected bureaucrats – to make the regulations that we have to follow. Penalties result if we don't do so, despite the fact that the rules were never approved by those our Constitution decreed responsible for doing so.

Secular law, however, is superimposed on a large number of other sources of instruction that abound in our lives. Among them are “common knowledge,” customs and traditions (“We've always done it that way”), fashions, rumors, societal “norms,” the expectations of others, and numerous other guides. Our bookstores are filled with handbooks for us “dummies” so that we'll do things in the right way.

And besides the sources of instruction are the authorities that tell us what we should do are those who tell us what we must do. At home it's our parents. Elsewhere it may be teachers, bosses, doctors, accountants, union stewards, and similar experts. And, of course, judges. Their opinions and biases, after all, supersede the written laws which, in any case, they interpret. In actuality, they have the last word. Ignorance of their views is no excuse for violating them. (You certainly don't want to contradict a dictator. At least not if you value your life.)

That's the minimum. There are other authorities of all types and they both set standards for us and manage our lives. Hebrew National answers to a “Higher Authority.” And federal and state authorities make sure that we're following the rules. And the MTA and similar agencies govern our ability to go from place to place. There are others, of course, which only deal with us in particular areas of life. In my case, for example, the JCAH (Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals) decided what constituted proper medical practice, setting the rules as to how to follow their wishes but, every few years, when we were finally beginning to understand their rules, they changed them.

What's the answer? What should we do – especially when standards and rules disagree? There are different approaches, mainly based on your philosophy. But rather than outline the approaches themselves, it will be more productive to review the criteria you'll use to choose.

Your level of belief may lead you to choose religious edicts rather than others while attachment to life may take you in another direction; abiding respect for your nation's history and customs may govern your actions but the suggestions of your lawyer or accountant may direct the way you abide by the law; the guidebook for dummies may point you in one direction and your personal trainer may go the opposite way. It doesn't matter what you choose. You're wrong.

So the best answer is to do whatever you think is right; to take the approach that you think is most consistent with your personal philosophy and your ultimate goals. But be prepared to take the consequences if things don't work out. Those who practice civil disobedience with the knowledge that they may be arrested are doing that, but it's what they've chosen to do; it's what they believe to be right.

So speak your mind, and either make a decision based on what is important to you or flip a coin.

Just remember. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

September 21, 2016