I
have read and heard it said by some that in this thing called
society, there are norms, standards, beliefs and traditions which
define it, but which, in the regular course of time can and must
change in order for the society to grow and improve. Along these
lines, there are some who have assumed that this change or growth
must include a change in moral values, especially where religion is
concerned and they use this reasoning to attack religion in all it's
forms. While not attempting to control anyone's thoughts or beliefs,
I think it would be helpful to examine the idea that values can
become outmoded and useless in a society where people agree on such a
course and wish to freely follow it to it's end.
So,
let us take as an example the moral value of property rights.
History is almost nothing but the chronicles of property rights
disputes, whether personal or national. Everyone wants their own
property, free from the oppressions of a neighbor, king or ruler of
any kind. Thousands of years ago, from Mt. Sinai came the words,
“Thou shalt not steal,” and ancient civilizations reserved their
harshest punishments for those who felt inclined to violate the
property rights of their neighbors by stealing or any other dishonest
act. No one wanted to be taken advantage of.
But
suppose there was a group of people who decided that property rights
were old-fashioned and that they wanted to set up a society where
this value was absent. Because they have decided that stealing is
not wrong any more, they start taking whatever they want from
whomever they want. The most bold and greedy among them would find
themselves in possession of the greatest wealth, which in turn would
make them prime targets for others. No one would want to work hard
to produce or procure anything honestly because they would be afraid
that someone bigger or stronger would take it away and murder would
follow closely on the heels of this wanton theft as people would
resent the removal of their property.
Believe
it or not, there have actually been many instances in history when
this very thing has happened. People, in their zeal to find the
'perfect society' decided that old values, laws and standards were
outmoded. They substituted 'common goods' for property rights, and
found themselves in a vortex of shifting ground where no one was
safe. Common property quickly evolved to include people, and soon
the family was dissolved in favor of 'free love'. Unlike the bold
predictions of glorious cities of wealth and peace, these societies
always led to a terrible sort of economic and moral cannibalism. The
strong preyed upon the weak until the weak were either dead or
silenced. When there were only the strong and greedy who remained,
they always ended by fighting to the death for what they wanted.
History shows that when you take away a man's right to own property,
you take away his outward motives for self-restraint and
self-respect.
If
a man will not control himself, I must either let him take what he
wants from me, whether it be my property, my family or my life, or, I
must find a way to either stop him or remove him from my society.
Anciently, those who lacked self-restraint were not allowed to
wantonly kill, steal or violate another's person but were either
punished or banished for their crimes. Without property rights and
the laws and punishments to protect them, there can be no peace or
safety in any society. But if this is true for property rights,
could it not also be true for other laws? For instance, if there is
no moral code, then who is to stop a man from abusing a child? If
moral codes can be outmoded then where does one draw the line between
what is abuse and what is not? And If there is no line for
restraint, then where will be the line for defense?
