Cosmology in the religious as opposed to the secular, anti-theist context, is the explanation of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe, from a more natural, religious perspective. It is also largely irrelevant to us mortals. Our personal cosmology is what we should be concerned about, not Creation’s.
So, rather than considering Heaven’s plan for creation, consider the state of your own soul and the angel and devil on your shoulders.
Of course, if you’re at all like me, you’re more likely considering how to get either your angel or your devil on both your shoulders. 😉
Claude-FrÃ©dÃ©ric Bastiat, a 19th Century economist and political philosopher of the French Liberal School – think proto-libertarian – was more than a little concerned about society turning its back to what is good and embracing what it is evil.
When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe.
— FrÃ©dÃ©ric Bastiat
Economic Harmonies (1850 AD)
Not, of course that this is new thought or warning. It goes back to at least Biblical times.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
— Isaiah 5:20, The Bible (KJV)
But, inherent to these very thoughts and proscriptions in the conundrum. Who are the misguided of the public? Who, indeed, have chosen to call evil good, and good evil? When a society – truly, at this point more of a population than a society – cannot even agree upon what words mean, much less what are examples thereof, it becomes almost moot to try to decide this. And yet, from the standpoint of both utility and primal, existential need, decide this America must do.
Everyone, please do check you privileges. Oh, not in the manner that the Liberals and Progressives mean for you to do so in order to delegitimize any opinion that you might have that dissents against their agenda and closely held beliefs. Instead check your privileges and, if possible, enumerate them for yourselves because the privileges you’ve earned or your ancestors earned for you will go along way towards defining the character of your culture.
I would say that, even more than rights, privileges are the fundamental metric of what any people value and hold dear.
The role and extent of government has been a matter of contention since Man first developed government. Nowhere is this more true than the ongoing war over what, if any, harm any government should allow to happen to the People.
Even the philosopher Hugo Adam Bedau, a current favorite among limited government and social liberal circles doesn’t provide much surcease from the argument.
Government should allow persons to engage in whatever conduct they want to, no matter how deviant or abnormal it may be, so long as:
- they know what they are doing,
- they consent to it, and
- no one â€” at least no one other than the participants â€” is harmed by it.
â€” Hugo Adam Bedau
Sure, Bedau’s words sound good and is if they’d make a good framework for the limits of government involvement and interference with the lives and actions of the governed.Â Sadly, however Bedau’s words beg the questions of what is the proof of knowledge aforethought and what constitutes consent.
His words also, much like the Wiccan Rede – An it harm none, do as you will – leave the glaring and easily warred over questions of what’s the harm and, much like claims of offensiveness,Â just who gets to decide that harm has been done in the first place.
No, not even Bedau’s simple prescription will ameliorate the conflict over just what the government should be allowed to regulate or proscribe.