Ethics & Morality of THE
PRIVILEGED FEW
I
suppose everyone is exposed, during their school years, to a dose of ethics and
desirable characteristics of moral behavior.
At that early age it was easy to believe that everyone knew what's right
and what's wrong. Killing people is bad,
and helping them is good. How hard can
that be?
There exists
puzzling contradictions to this simple philosophy. Our favorite TV programs are interrupted
with advertisements reminding us about the evils of driving while intoxicated,
or the distractions of texting and other aberrant behavior. One wonders why it is necessary to remind
drivers not to behave in a manner which is adverse to common sense or well established
law.
The question
arises, "If I don't like a particular
law, am I allowed to ignore it? And if I get
caught in the act, will the court throw the case out the window when I explain
that I actually oppose this particular law? . . .probably not!"
Can we conclude,
then, that all laws which are duly passed and posted for our edification are to
be applied to everyone regardless of race, religion or political standing?
During the 2016
Presidential campaign, a candidate was asked what should happen to a person who
committed abortion in violation of the law?
Incredibly, he was criticized for suggesting the woman would have to be
penalized. Logically, if someone
violates the law, there are consequences.
With this in mind,
it is difficult to understand, for example, the current rush by many State
Legislators to allow the sale of Marijuana in their state when it is in
violation of Federal law.
California
Legislators have allowed the issuance of driver's licenses to those persons who
cannot prove they are in this country legally which, of course, is in violation
of Federal Law.
According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Privilege is defined as "Not
subject to the usual rules or penalties because of some special circumstance .
. .a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage or favor to a
position or an office."
Can we conclude
these California Legislators consider themselves to be part of the privileged
few and are exempt from this same set of laws which bind the rest of
society? Obviously, many California
law-makers have ignored their oath of office when they swore to honor and
defend the Constitution of the United States particularly when passing
legislation making California a so-called "Sanctuary State."
And now literally
hundreds of South American transients are lining up on the Mexican Border
claiming they have every right to enter the boundaries of the United States
under provisions of the international laws regarding asylum for those in fear
of persecution in the their home or because of their heritage. In short they too wish to be a part of "The
Privileged Few" and exempt from our nation's immigration laws which exact
quotas and rules for legal entry into the U.S.
California
Governor Jerry Brown, when asked to provide National Guard troops along the
California-Mexican border, said he would provide troops as an enforcement
against the illegal drug trade and other criminal acts but would not assist the
U.S. in its enforcement of illegal immigration.
Accordingly, he, by default, is granting illegal aliens the privilege of
ignoring existing law. It appears the
only person or persons who are not "privileged" are the California taxpayers
who are left to pick up the tab.
Referring to the
chapter called "Crito" (of Plato's "Apology"), Socrates was offered an
opportunity to escape to a neighboring country.
He responded by asking, "Do you think that a state can exist and not
be overthrown, in which the decisions of the law are of no force, and are
disregarded and set at nought by private individuals?"