It’s a given that Levin will use his fictional Statist in every chapter to exploit the vanity, cynicism and apprehensions of his readers. It’s a given that he is backed by the ample resources of the corporate world and has a position of trust connected to the media. The one principle for how we are misinformed that varies by chapter is how he confuses what is normal and abnormal (Principle #7). For the chapter “On Faith and the Founding” Levin confuses Natural Law and morality. By extension he confuses paternalism and freedom.
Levin alleges Natural Law and morality to be normally one and the same. He does not allege this directly, but he uses both terms interchangeably and with a vagueness that encourages the reader to equate them. Normally, the Natural Law that Levin refers to differs from morality. By Natural Law he is referring to the doctrine established by Enlightenment philosophers and accepted by the Founders. This is a vision that includes private property as a natural right. There are other problems with “Natural Law” as well, but I’ve discussed this one exception before and it’s enough to make an important point.
The presumed authority behind Natural Law, according to Levin, was God on the one hand and a history of “observations and experiences” by scholarly humans on the other. I’ve already established that there is a major flaw in the Natural Law doctrine, so perhaps we should not be connecting God with this flawed construct. The “observations and experiences” behind the development of Natural Law were by a paternal few, advocated and applied mainly by elite scholars, relative to their own property experiences connected to nation states and colonialism. Yes, Natural Law is 100% a relative doctrine, as further evidence by its flaws, not an absolute thesis on morality.
I’m in total agreement with Levin that there are moral absolutes. I will be a little more specific than Levin about those absolutes so as not to confuse them with culturally relative beliefs. Salvation beliefs, as a counterexample, are relative to the culture where they have been developed. Even within the same culture these beliefs can be relative. I know some Christians considering themselves fundamentalists that believe in predestination, some believe in free will and some “tap dance” their way into believing in both. That contrast in personal responsibility has important implications for salvation that go beyond accepting Christ as your Savior and the Bible as infallible.
Morals, by their nature of being absolute, are not dependent on a few elite scholars to discover and formulate into natural law. They are not held by gatekeepers to a faith. To be absolute they must be potentially accessible to every single person of every single culture, independently of the knowledge constructed by that culture. Humans evolved to be an altruistic species (if you are religious you add the stipulation “by God’s intent”), and that is the foundation of morality. When we function in small, intimate groups, as we naturally evolved to do, we are much more likely to understand, accept and display altruistic/moral virtues, regardless of the relative culture or religion. This means we are more likely to understand and display the altruistic/moral traits of humility, faith, courage and love. To not do so within the context of intimate fellowship is to go against the grain of evolution (or God). My book, Systems out of Balance, goes into this quite a bit further.
So what is normal is that moral absolutes are not the province of scholarly elites to fathom and construct into Natural Law; we all inherently understand them and we all would tend to display them under the natural conditions of intimate fellowship. Of course, cultures that thrive on anonymous, paternal organizations such as government, corporations and interest groups are far removed from being natural. They create the need to construct laws, including Natural Law, that are relative to their own set of paternal institutions.
Chances are that Levin believes that our relative Natural Law and moral absolutes are synonymous and he is just transferring his own misinformed knowledge. Yet Levin’s position empowers paternal institutions to be our moral gatekeepers even as he simultaneously professes to be championing individual freedom. More on that next.
Here is previous background material.
An overview of misinformation principles
A basic understanding of free markets
