James M. Redwine

Aristotle

Natural Law, Morality and Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Our homo sapiens species has been around about two to three hundred thousand years. We probably began biologically in Africa with what we assert is our Western culture becoming ascendant in southern Europe about twenty-five hundred years ago. The Greeks and the Romans laid the foundation for our civilization and we still rely upon their theories of what a civilized society should be, especially in regard to morality and law.

History is replete with rising and falling societies that have gone from collectively agreed upon legal systems to usurpation of power by elites that caused the society to fall upon its own sword. While there are many reasons why each “eternal” nation collapsed, as Plato posited in his Republic, a society rules by consensus then by a ruling party in its own interests. The rulers define the laws based upon what the autocrats desire, then define anyone who breaks such laws a wrongdoer. This is the final stage of a great civilization. Law moves from a consensus among a majority of the citizens as to what is right and good to a decree from the powerful based upon what they want.

Thousands of years ago primitive societies found they could live better lives among themselves and with their neighbors if they cooperated on such matters as the sharing of natural resources and respect for the person and property of others. This was the beginning of morality; and still moral behavior by individuals and nations comes down to treating others as we wish to be treated. Gradually, such nascent civilizations came to realize that as Aristotle said, legal systems (laws) were necessary because people could not restrain desire for power. If people were perfect, laws would not be needed but, as we are not, to ensure justice we must have law. And if the laws remain just, a society can survive life’s inevitable chaos.

Such philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle believed the world was grounded in Natural Law. Law just existed as did gods. Mankind only needed to divine what the gods required and apply such rules to humanity. If mankind ignored this immutable Natural Law, then chaos would rein. This concept of the eternal existence of Natural Law was at the core of most of the great legal theories from the ancient Greeks up to our Founding Fathers and is still prevalent today in many countries. In America, we separated law from superstition and left it to individuals to believe or not. This separation of theocracy from democracy was a new concept 250 years ago and has helped preserve our nation through many moral crises such as the Civil War and political in-fighting today. The First Ten Amendments of our Constitution are the rock by which we thrive.

Experience has proven that relying on a fear of a god or gods to enforce laws fails in the face of human nature. We have found that it is human law that must set limits on the natural tendency of mankind to abuse power. Over the last twenty-five hundred years or so we have sought systems of law that restrain autocratic impulses and protect individual rights. The most successful of such systems so far has been the Separation of Powers legal system as set forth in the United States Constitution.

Our Constitution was not based on Natural Law but upon the theories of such visionaries as Baron de Montesquieu. (1689-1755), John Locke (1632-1704), and especially, James Madison (1751-1836) and James Wilson (1742-1798). Wilson not only was a contributing author to our Constitution but also sat on our first United States Supreme Court. These legal philosophers recognized the major problem of instituting a lasting democratic legal system was preventing autocrats from usurping powers that properly belong to the citizens.

The division of executive power and legislative power as a restraint on one another was not sufficient. The inclusion of a third branch of government, the judiciary, was the piece of the puzzle that our Founders devised to answer this fatal flaw that had occurred in other legal systems which had failed, because as power corrupted the leaders, democracy collapsed into tyranny. In America today, our Legislative Branch has generally abandoned its role of restraining our out-of-control Executive Branch and our Judicial Branch has sometimes not asserted proper restraints on both of the other branches.

Is America in a vulnerable position democratically today? Probably not, as yet. However, when the Executive repeatedly takes the country to war in spite of virtually every poll indicating a significant majority of the electorate objects, and the Legislative Branch is supine in its duties concerning the power to declare war and the Judiciary fiddles away, the will of the people is frustrated and democracy might teeter. This could be one of those times as Greece, Rome and numerous other democracies discovered when it is critical that all three branches not only stay in their lane but gird their Constitutional loins up about them and courageously execute their own Constitutionally defined responsibilities.

You can also follow us on Facebook at “Jim Peg Redwine” or Substack “@gavelgamut”

Simple Solutions

by Leave a Comment

Alexander cutting the Gordian knot

Let’s say you have a knotty problem you would like solved, a Gordian Knot type problem for example. Would you be satisfied with an Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) approach? I think not and I think Alexander’s personal tutor, the great problem solver Aristotle (384-322 BCE), would have reproved his famous pupil for hacking the knot in two instead of untying it. Alexander did provide a simple analysis to a complex problem but he did not solve the problem; he only avoided it.

As most of us have unfortunately experienced: for every complex problem there is a simple wrong answer. Tough problems are tough because they are complex. Complex situations almost always require hard work, imagination, intelligence and often good will to resolve. If the first reaction to a hard problem is to seek someone else to blame or if assessing blame is more important than finding a solution, a solution may not be found or may result in even more harm while an effective remedy awaits.

When it comes to addressing problems I respectfully suggest to you, Gentle Reader, that there are at least two large categories of potential problem solvers: (1) those people who through meanness, laziness or ignorance claim the problem cannot, or should not, be solved; and (2) those people who with an open mind and good will at least try to find a solution.

We have all unfortunately encountered many officious persons who revel in their occasional positions of power over others and deny help just because they can. Then too, we have all been blessed, and maybe surprised, by a chance encounter with a person who believes if they can help they should. Life is pretty much defined for us by whether we run into more people who are haters or helpers, selfish or selfless, grifters or givers, sophists or sages, or as with our most pressing current problem: (1) public servants and consensus builders; or (2) those who yell “Fire!” in our country’s theater instead of helping to put it out.

How The World Ends

by Leave a Comment

The first television I saw was displayed in the front window of an appliance store on Main Street in Pawhuska, Oklahoma in 1950. It had a real wood cabinet which swallowed the 9” screen. The picture was a blurry black and white that showed the same Indian Chief test pattern for hours. It just sat there as a continuously gasping crowd of gawkers oohed and aahed. I was unaware that I was in the presence of the beginning of the end of meaningful conversation, the reading of books and independent judgment based on individual investigation and analysis.

These insights appeared to me after almost 70 years because Peg and I have spent the past two weeks without access to television. I mention this woman I found living with me because until a couple of weeks ago our conversations had for years, especially the last two years, consisted mainly of “What is a Kardashian and what is it that they are doing?” Or, “Can you believe what those bobbing heads, most of whom seem to be twenty years old and chosen for their hairstyles, just stated as fact?”

With the T.V. out of the picture Peg and I have made some startling discoveries. It turns out we both enjoy getting out of our matching recliners and going outside. There is a lot to do out there. And we discovered that rather than watching inane commentary from screaming news pundits we seem to have some common interests, three children and seven grandchildren for instance, who are themselves engaged in some fascinating endeavors. Well, at least when they are not glued to some T.V. program such as Duck Dynasty or The View or on a cell phone.

Another discovery I made about Peg is she knows quite a bit about non-television things. These past two weeks we have wondered together how long the ten-thousand-year Egyptian dynasty would have made it had Egyptian children been educated by re-runs of Howdy Doody instead of mentoring by Imhotep. By the way, according to Wikipedia, Imhotep means “The one who comes in peace”, a pretty good mantra for civilizations wishing to build more than hamburger stands and hoping to last more than a few years.

Now, I know the smart people who read this column, and only smart people do, have picked up on a logical lacuna in my diatribe against television. How is reliance on the Internet any better? Well, it isn’t; it’s worse. In fact, what little bit of culture and polite conversation was left after television became ubiquitous has now been obliterated by cell phones, Snap Chat, Twitter, etc., etc.

My only defense is, society started me on this downhill slide in 1950. In other words, if I had been like Alexander the Great and had Aristotle as my personal advisor, instead of television, I too could have been great.