Page 88 - Bus101FlipBook

6-6 Ethics & Social Responsibility [CH 6

These observed laws are enacted differently and specifically and cannot be

suspended. Jump off a 40-foot cliff and gravity takes hold and a person falls; this law
cannot be suspended. Even in flight, the engine power of the airplane overcomes the
effect of gravity. A man cannot choose either to obey the law of gravitation or not,
but a man can choose to either obey or not obey the Law of Human Nature; and even
choosing to disobey it, is a willful act.
Let us reinforce this idea. Each man is at every moment subjected to several
different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a
body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; set him unsupported in
midair, and he has no more choice about falling than a stone. His biological makeup
subjects him to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an
animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things;
but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with
animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses—
the Law of Nature.
This law was called the Law of Nature because people understand that everyone
knew it by nature (they were born with it) and that it need not to be taught—this Law
of Right and Wrong. We recognize that man may choose to disobey, act wrongly, yet
it is a part of his nature. This is not to say that we do not think it impossible to find an
odd individual here and there who does not know it, just as you find a few people

who are colorblind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the human race as a whole,
they thought that the human idea of right vs. wrong (decent behavior) was obvious to
everyone. If this fundamental premise is wrong then there is no sense in saying that
an enemy who attacks you were in the wrong unless Right and Wrong (morality) is a
real thing. The German Nazis, actually wrote laws that allowed their bad behavior,
which, in trial, the world condemned as “crimes against humanity”. If they possessed
no knowledge of what we mean by right and wrong then we could have nothing
against them or their actions any more than we could disagree with them over their
hair color.

Right and wrong: an issue of culture?
There are those who argue that this idea of the Law of Nature known by all men
is not rational, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite
different moralities that were exercised in their societies. But this is not true. There
have been differences in ethical behaviors, but these have never amounted to
anything like the total difference. If anyone takes the time to compare the moral
“First we overlook teaching of say the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and
evil. Then we Romans, what really becomes apparent is how very much alike they are to each other
permit evil. Then and to our own.
Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or
we legalize evil. where a man felt proud of and retold his story of deceit and the “double cross” to all
Then we promote the people who had befriended him. You might just as well try to imagine a country
evil. Then we where two and two made five. Men have differed regarding which people they could
be unselfish to; whether it was your own family members, or your fellow
celebrate evil. countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you should not put
Then we persecute yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Many have differed as to whether
one should have one wife or four, or 55 as Brigham Young had, but they have always
those who still call agreed that you must not simply take another man’s wife. I am not discounting the
it evil.” literature and scriptwriters who bring to the screen all manner of adulterous liaisons.
In your lexicon you may call it “cheating on…” but in the context and contract of
marriage what they are suggesting is breaching a trust, and will forward any number
of rationales to legitimize their viewpoint and resultant dishonorable behavior.
Equally remarkable is this: Whenever a person says he does not believe in a real
Right and Wrong, you’ll find the same person going back on this later. He may break
his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him, he will be complaining “It’s
not fair” before you can say “Jack be Nimble”. A nation may say treaties don’t
matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty
they want to break was an unfair one. If treaties do not matter, and if there is no such
thing as right and wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the
difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they exposed themselves and
demonstrated that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like

Copyrighted Material