4.1.1
'TRUTH', 'PROPERTY', 'LIFE' AND 'SUPREMENESS'
It is said
that their gods have told them not to lie,
but their 'truth' is simply
what sacred books make them believe.
And it is said
that their god has told them not to lie,
but their 'truth' is simply
what supernaturalists once professed.
It is said
that their gods have told them not to steal,
but their 'property' is simply
what they were born to.
And it is said
that their god has told them not to steal,
but their 'property' is simply
what they have managed to acquire.
It is said
that their gods have told them not to murder,
but their 'life' is simply
that of the tyrannical killer as well.
And it is said
that their god has told them not to murder,
but their 'life' is simply
that of the members of their own group.
It is not said
that their gods have told them not to discriminate,
since their 'supremeness' is simply
the dharma of partiality itself.
And it is not said
that their god has told them not to discriminate,
since their 'Supreme' is simply
the epitome of exclusivity 'Himself'.
Lying, discriminating (in a sense), stealing and
murdering have a built-in wrongness, and therefore it is
merely tautological to assert that one should not lie, should
not discriminate (in the sense of making an unjustified distinction),
should not steal and should not murder.
Without an accompanying doctrine which determines why and when a particular
form of speaking is wrong or right, why and when a particular form of
taking is wrong or right, why and when a particular form of killing is
wrong or right, the old commandments thou shalt not lie, thou
shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder are analytical truths
(provided that the emphasis is placed on lie, steal and
murder and not on thou).
If only the wrong ways of not telling the truth are 'lying',
then you must not lie (in the sense of you ought not to lie)
is a truism and emphasizing it empty rhetoric, unless it is
uttered in a particular context. (If said in a particular
context it is to indicate that a particular utterance is
considered a lie, that is, wrong.)
You must not lie, or thou shalt not lie, presupposes and
requires a theory of truth(fulness),
and it is only worthwhile to teach and learn what the elements of such a
theory are, and to live by the right interpretation of its substantive
principles.
It is senseless and naive, or hypocritical, to merely let people know that
they ought not to tell a falsehood when it is wrong to tell a falsehood.
When sacred books and prophets tell falsehoods and
suggest that certain things are true which should not be held
true because of a lack of empirical evidence or rational
justification, they lie and they discredit truth itself. This
equally applies to political documents and to the ideologues of
political systems; and to all of us.
If every form of taking away were 'stealing', or if every
form of using were 'abuse', it would be absurd to say that
one must not steal or abuse.
But if only the wrong ways of taking away are 'stealing', and only the
wrong ways of using 'abuse', then you must not steal or abuse
is also a truism, and emphasizing it —again— empty rhetoric
(unless it is uttered in a particular context).
You must not steal or abuse , or thou shalt not steal,
presuppose and require a theory of property, and it is only
worthwhile —again— to teach and learn what the elements of such
a theory are, and to live by the substantive, moral standards of property.
Here, too, it is senseless and naive, or hypocritical, to merely let people
know that they ought not to take away or use something or somebody when it
is wrong to take it or
'im away, or to use it or 'im.
'Property' in a normative sense is, then, not just what
one is born to or what one has managed to acquire or subject,
whatever religious or political ideologies may want people or
the male heads of households to believe.
(Even if every person is automatically the sole owner of
'er own body, and the 'theft' or abuse
of other people's bodies therefore immoral, the proposition that this is
so is also part of a theory of property.)
Similarly, if every form of killing is 'murder', this would
entail absolute pacifism with regard to all life, personal or
nonpersonal, human or nonhuman. But if only the wrong forms of
killing are 'murder', then you must not murder is the third
truism, and emphasizing it the third case of empty rhetoric
(unless it is uttered in a particular context again).
You must not murder, or thou shalt not murder, presupposes
and requires a theory of life and death, or rather, a whole doctrine of
ground-norms, and it is only
worthwhile —again— to teach and learn what the elements of such
a doctrine are, and to live by the substantive standards of that doctrine.
For the same reason, it is senseless too and naive here, or hypocritical,
to merely let people know that they ought not to kill a living
being when it is wrong to kill it. Both the absolute pacifist
who refuses to ever kill a tyrant who is bound to kill many more
people, and the cruel tyrant 'imself who exclusively respects
the lives of those who belong to 'er own religious or political
faction agree that one should not murder. Yet, their agreement
is purely emotive and devoid of any practical significance.
Lies, thefts, assaults and murders were proscribed many
centuries, if not millenniums, before the proscription of
discrimination in the sense of making an unjustified distinction.
(Some might contend that it was 'universal love' or some
such thing which used to stand for the inclusiveness which
characterizes the absence of all discrimination, but love is
just a polysemous panacea which can be made to fill virtually
any gap.) If every form of making a distinction were 'discrimination',
it would be absurd to say that one must not discriminate.
But also you must not discriminate (which has no historical
religious equivalent) is a truism if discrimination
means making an unjustified or wrong distinction.
What you must not discriminate presupposes and requires is a
theory of relevancy: it is the irrelevance of the distinction which
makes it wrong and unjustified (even
tho not all irrelevant
distinctions are called "discriminatory" by everyone).
Like in the case of truth, property and matters of life and death, it is
only worthwhile to teach and learn what the elements of such a theory
of relevancy are, and to live by the right interpretation of its
substantive principles. Otherwise the distinctions one makes are
due to be partial. And otherwise one's actions are exclusions or
expressive of exclusiveness and a belief in exclusiveness.
The concept of relevancy which plays such a crucial role in
questions of discrimination will be dealt with in the
next chapter (chapter I.5). The concept of property which plays
such a crucial role in questions of theft and abuse will be dealt with in
the last chapter of this book (chapter I.9). Matters
of life and nonlife which are governed by the ground-norms
of the doctrine to be expounded in the Book of Fundamentals will
be dealt with in the second-last chapter of that book
(chapter F.5).
Finally, the concept of truth, which plays such a crucial
role in verbal communication, will be summarily dealt with in
the present chapter. We shall return to the special discussion
of this notion and value in several divisions of the Book of
Fundamentals (notably Truth in a Social
Perspective and Truth and
Neutral-inclusivity).
