Arthur Gordon, now deceased—a soldier, husband, father, a writer, and editor—asserted that if during our lives we continually strive to help others, our strength is increased and we do the job well. However, if we are consumed only with helping ourselves, we fare less well, and Gordon declared this to be a law inexorable as the principle of gravity. Principles (fundamental truths) are universal and unchanging. For example:
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
– Martin Luther King Jr.
Are Social Values Necessarily Based on Principles?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence
Principles that are “natural” laws, such as gravity, are difficult to refute. Social principles, such as the Golden Rule, on the other hand, seem subjective and agreement is not readily achieved. Social values (the preference of contemporary society) add even more confusion. For instance, the social values prevalent in many of the United States during the eighteenth century did not align with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence (ex: that all men were created equal)—confirming that society’s accepted values were subjective rather than self-evident truths.
How do we determine whether a principle is self-evident and not just an ephemeral set of values (aka fad)? One litmus test is posterity: principles are universal and unchanging and thus stand the test of time. Does the principle we are testing seem to have withstood the test of time?
We perform another test by arguing the opposite point of view (e.g., Earth’s gravity pushes objects up―which we know to be absurd). My late father loved to argue and debate. He would choose a controversial topic and jump headlong into a heated discussion. Occasionally, he would stop midstream and announce that it was time to argue the other point of view—never fun if you were bent on winning, but thought provoking if you donned your creative-thinking hat. Arguing the opposite position facilitates the ability to understand others’ points of view, but is not easy. This technique is also employed to determine if an opposing argument (for instance, one for or against a principle or truth) holds any legitimacy. The more legitimate the opposite argument, the less likely that the initial statement is an objective principle.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Consider the postulate that “All men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights—Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Contemplate arguing the opposite. How can one logically claim that someone is born but does not possess the right to life? The act of being born alive proves that we are born with the right to life. How then is the next logical step to assume that some should be born to a life without freedom or without the right to pursue happiness?
Is it logical to assume that we are each valued differently by our creator? No, in fact, it is declared the He loves us all, that we each are His children despite (not because of) our actions. Since arguing that the opposite seems to be quite illogical, we can be confident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Being created equal, does not mean we are created to be the same. No…we are different, but born with equal rights. This does not mean we are entitled…and that someone owes us something, only that we have rights and it is our responsibility to act accordingly.
God Doesn’t Love Us Equally, He Loves Us Uniquely
We were created as equals in God’s eyes, with the right to be treated well. Man and woman in his image were created equal. Jews and gentiles were created equal. We were created equal—not the same, not with identical gifts—but with an infinite variety of gifts―gifts specifically designed for each of us. These differences are not wrong nor are they mistakes—they are simply differences.
We are different, but we are equally valued by our creator. Society may place high or low values on various gifts, but God does not. We need to learn to use our gifts, value our differences, and embrace our equality. Embracing equality of all in the face of such variation, accepting all as through the eyes of our creator, is challenging, and even more so when one places no faith in a creator. Where do you stand?
Recent Comments