Eternal happiness

"For we mean by eternal life that life where there is endless happiness. For if the soul live in eternal punishments, by which also those unclean spirits shall be tormented, that is rather eternal death than eternal life. For there is no greater or worse death than when death never dies. But because the soul from its very nature, being created immortal, cannot be without some kind of life, its utmost death is alienation from the life of God in an eternity of punishment. So, then, He only who gives true happiness gives eternal life, that is, an endlessly happy life." -Augustine, The City of God, Book 6, Chapter 12

Augustine here continues his tirade against those who would worship "happiness" (a.k.a. felicity) or any other trait as a god in itself. Rather, it makes more sense that God gives happiness, than that happiness is a god. Furthermore, if we want to life a life of happiness, what better way than to live an eternal life of happiness? We will all live forever, but we must determine what kind of life it will be. God who gives happiness is the only one worth pursuing for eternal life.

Loquacious Vanity

"For what is more loquacious than vanity? And though it be able, if it like, to shout more loudly than the truth, it is not, for all that, more powerful than the truth." --Augustine, The City of God, Book 5, Chapter 26

Conquering and Barbarism

For, as our Scriptures say, "the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, and blesses the covetous, whom the Lord abhors." Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell me that this and the other was a great man, because he fought and conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such arms.--Augustine, The City of God, Book 3, Chapter 14

Are we proud of ourselves when we dominate at the cost of others?

Are we proud of people in our history who have subdued other nations?

Do we honor virtue, even if it was a virtuous loss?

Do we consider violence more virtouous than laziness?

Is success truly success if it causes others to fail?

On the Law

I have just finished a series on why laws should be made.

First post - The Law

Second post - Why Make Laws?

Third post - Which Law is Right?

Which Law is Right?

Asking which of the following positions is right is almost impossible, as they are definitions of what is right. It is similar to asking, "Which blue chair is actually blue?"

Social liberals - "Something should be illegal if and only if it violates the rights of others."
Social conservatives - "Something should be illegal if it is immoral (by some standard)."

As the previous post discussed, the utilitarian answer seems to favor a liberal approach. The reasoning is that since there is no longer a common standard for morality in society, one must either replace that standard to return to a conservative position, or "rights" must become the standard. In other words, liberalism "works" in our current situation.

The challenge to those who do believe in a universal moral standard is determining whether to surrender in the war of worldviews for something that "works" or to continue the battle for what is right. Even those who appeal to the Bible for moral truth recognize that the only way to demand that morality=legality is to establish a theocracy. Attempts at that in our own history have failed severely, as the leaders often do not live up to their own standards.

What remains is a system where people from entirely different worldviews are acting like they're talking about the same thing (i.e. legality) when they are talking about two different things (rights or morality). Even in financial debates one's "right" to a social service is pitted against the view that it is "wrong" to tax someone to pay for someone else's services. Either the battle will continue, or the culture will continue to shift back and forth.

In other words, the next installment of the 18th Amendment will probably be soon met by the next installment of the 21st Amendment.

This the last post in a series on why laws should be made. The first post defined commonly held positions. The second post described pros and cons of those positions.