The Greatest moment in Western History: Law again

Two thousand years ago a shockwave was felt in the middle East that has spread out in all directions, upsetting the Jewish order and standing opposed to the Arab world and Islam today. The ancient Babylonian law written down by Hammurabi and having existed for almost two millenia itself that for an eye one should pay with their eye, was famously challenged on a hillside beside Galilee. This was the most momentous event in Western history.

I won't take side and say whether Jesus was right, only to note that he sets up a dualism between two opposing views and confusions at the heart of the notion of justice.

Jesus would not dispute I am sure a central rule of thumb of morality (a categorical imperative in Kant) that we should do to others as we would like done unto us (in olde speak). He says amongst humans the greatest rule is to love our enemies as we love ourselves - people know what it is to love oneself (side with one's own side), he only asks that we extend that to others (side with them equally). When we act then, act with the same consideration for others as we do for ourselves - in modern talk be objective (that is inter-personally, not impersonally and materially cos humans ain't stones).

One might argue from this that when someone does wrong, that wrong arises because they did not give due consideration to the other party. The logical response then would be to teach them of their short sightedness and Hammurabi argues this is best done by showing them, by recreating it, the impact of what they have done for the Other person - i.e. have it done to them.

However one may dispute the apparent logic of this. If it is wrong to kill, then is killing a murderer not an act of killing? It should also be noted that while losing an eye may teach someone, killing will not!

There are many arguments for capital punishment like deterrent, cheaper than imprisonment, punishment but they are not the realm of morality.

Jesus argues on the other hand that we suffer the slings and arrows, the iniquities, of selfish men and the tyranny of evil people, and more we offer ourselves again. What does the wrong doer learn from this?

Well this is the path I have tested and miraculously it works. The problem with the former and I'll expand and argue this more in the future I'm sure is that Hammurabi's system can lead to resentment. People misunderstand the rules as fascism which leads to two problems: 1) they think if they can get away with it them it isn't wrong (2) they think the state is effectively sanctioning such behaviour for the powerful. This is what has happened today. People live in fear and ignorance rather than get to the root.

The root is what I have argued at length now - morality IS reality. A heavy hand simply covers up ignorance of this. What Jesus teaches does not take command of wrong doers, it asks them to take command! Their wrong doing arises precisely because they have not taken command.

On realising that they have complete power over you two things can happen to a wrong doer: they either slip into sadism and cruelty or they can experience the need for mercy. This is not what Jesus is asking, we do not turn the other cheek so that we can be pummelled into the ground.

I believe we turn the other cheek to show that really we are stronger. It defuses the attack, it shows the assailant that our love for them is greater than that for ourselves. Our love lies in the fact that while they wish us harm, we do not wish them harm, we love them. We see their actions as wrong not to us, but to them! If someone punches you out of anger, you will experience the fear, rage and other emotions and attitudes that arise from self love. But if you have love for others you will experience the sadness that this person is feeling anger themselves, that they have experienced you with such hostility, that their world is not such a nice world to love in. You would wish that did not attack you, not because of self love, but because you wish them to live in a peaceful world where they do not need to attack. If you can do this I can guarentee that the assailant will break-down because at heart this is all we seek for in this world - recognition of our own souls so that we might live again. When God says he loves us, he says it to our souls so that they might live again.

While I am born protestant and realise here that what I am saying is exactly Lutherian Christianity I believe I've arrived at these arguments from diverse sources including Buddhism (which has no proven direct link to Christianity).

Obviously these are the action of a saint. But, we should be aware that behind our self-love lives love-for-others which we should try and identify and cultivate whenever we can. Certainly I failed at work here! Very little love for the bosses, who I still think of as beyond help and terminally ignorant and stupid. This I try to solve for my own sake!

A problem does arrise though because Christian and Jewish/Islamic codes do differ here. We argue about Sharia law in UK at the moment - in my understanding while it is practical it seems to have missed the whole angle on "love".

As argued the Rules are laid down by the Rulers who are the wise who measure our behaviour so that we are advised to do what is in accordance with the Laws of Reality who is the unfailing and inevitable judge of what we do. This is why Church and State have no choice but to be combined. We have 3 Realities in UK : the Traditions of the Class system and Monarchy, the Realities of the Church and the practical realities of the government. They should inform one another equally, but instead they are split: absurd. Iran strangely is far superior in this department!

p.s. to last night. Authourities do have a part to play it seems in game theory, since they standardise the rules. Thus people in London and Newcastle drive on the same side of the road. This is the scope of secular government activity.

Ruling on the rules of football however is different because football has no impact on reality. It matters not how we play football, it could be like rugby, it could be like tennis and only a change of rules stands between these games. They exist because of the rules alone - in other words the rules don't describe a reality - the reality IS the rules - like in all fiction.