I have resisted writing on this subject for the fear of being accused of pilling on. Words have meaning and in some cases many interpretations. Lawyers are known especially for their ability to craft words to give it a legality—giving those words some credibility especially in the courts of law. This realm is far from my reality, so I cannot tell you much about its construct and purpose. I do however know that we need these things (laws) to give us some order or at the very least provide us with something to harangue, haggle and argue about. The bottom line is that laws determines how we operate and at times gives us clear boundaries as to what is right and wrong.
Philosophers have engaged in the art of giving meaning to social constructs but have left us with a lot of ambiguity because we essentially can have as many perspectives as we want on issues,especially when it requires some sort of moral interpretation. Religion immerses itself in this area also because of the claim to possession of the clearest guides not only to morality but in the view of many the purest determinant of right and wrong. For some, the interpretations are literal and for others it involves allegories—woven as stories that guide us in making moral interpretations as well as guiding us to right and wrong. Whatever book one subscribes to, whether it is the Bible, Koran, Hindu, they all provide guidance to belief, morality, and basic rules of life—defining and naming God and His expectations. If we can stay a bit away from our beliefs for a minute and just look at them as inspirational books, then it is easy to understand why depending on interpretation people can be misled quite easily.
Politicians or so called leaders have joined the fray, unfortunately there are no guiding principles other than what we have been taught as the mainline political practices—democracy, communism and socialism to name a few. Politicians are given to parsing, invectives and vituperations—in an attempt to confuse us and validate what by any definition is immoral, contemptuous and totally unacceptable. Lest I digress, this is about words, meaning and interpretations. When is a “thief a thief” and when is corruption what it is said to be. Which law or good book justifies either? Can one tell me which one is the lesser of two evils. It is as if we can distinguish between both it then provides us justification and an explanation of its existence. Why would one in authority try to explain the difference between both—what is their motive? Please disabuse me if I am wrong—have things changed so much that everything is grey and there is nothing like “black and white” anymore? In my opinion, it is asinine to suggest that there is a difference between the two, even if true. Both are embedded in each other—stealing after all is a corrupt practice. Does it really matter if the legal definition suggests a difference and are they not birds of the same feather? I would like to know which of the aforementioned books (Law, Bible, Koran) suggests that both are right/legal. Unless we have become so morally decrepit that we cannot distinguish between right and wrong, then we can buy into such. Again, life cannot be built on philosophical constructs—in that realm, one can make arguments on both sides and has a free hand in choosing his or her point. This is real life. I may be wrong and philosophers can take issue with this but let us call a spade a spade and we will be guiding young minds in the right direction. Just my opinion—that of an overactive mind.
Paul Inyang – 2/12/2015