An Approach to Some Rights and Wrongs in Human Behaviour
The concept is clear: To do right we may do wrong in the eyes of others. I write of the deeper meaning of morality. We do not all see things the same way and that is good news not bad news for mankind. He, who is called Christ, will be the final Arbiter of right and wrong. His presence and judgement are coming for certain. His decisions are inscrutable yet defined in His Father’s Law. Yes He is the only way to the Father for us men and women.
I consider some actions never justifiable namely cold blooded murder, crimes leading to murder, kidnapping, robbery, serious burglary and theft, sexual and physical assault upon the person including rape and grievous bodily harm with major frauds. There can be no two ways about such crimes. They are all very serious. Self-Defence is at full Defence to murder, if made out. Provocation by the victim reduces murder to manslaughter. Diminished responsibility, a statutory Defence to murder, but only to reduce it to manslaughter, has only been enshrined in our law since the early 1960’s.
The Yorkshire Ripper tried to run this statute law Defence to his multiple murders when tried in the early 1980’s. The Judge and Senior Crown Counsel would not have it and the Jury convicted Peter Sutcliffe of each murder after the Old Bailey murder trial. A murderer will always try and wriggle out of a murder conviction and obtain favourable life terms with a view to release when the hullaballoo has died down decades later. Sutcliffe was no different. He will not accept his culpability. I am concerned with lawful actions, yet morally fallible and mistaken in the eyes of some. These actions require self awareness and responsibility by the actor in a manner these serious criminals will always seek to evade, whether found guilty or on a plea of guilty for tactical reasons to secure a lesser sentence.
2. The Core of My Case: “To do Right”
- This intention lies in the heart of every man and woman whoever he may be within his everyday law abiding conduct. People in England & Wales wish to act lawfully. But in our modern age truly Christian moral signposts to good conduct within the lawful zone of action, if they exist, are often not noticed or observed. I am not writing of sexual unfaithfulness called cheating by the gutter press. I am interested in the decisions which elucidate and clarify the modern social and political scene. I should say I do identify the leaders in politics and media as crucial to these decisions, which will be ground breaking if properly arrived at.
The media controllers focus, not on the morally serious, but the extraordinary. I consider the decisions of our controllers of media to ignore the widely known concerns of our people regarding the Death Sentence issue for murder to be lamentable. Essentially this section of public opinion goes leaderless, save for my two yearlong campaign still going. To sum it up in one word these controllers are not “bothered” with this Death Penalty in our Land. This topic of the Death Sentence involves subjective value judgements and these controllers shy away from such topics. I now examine less controversial aspects of this essay title in this paragraph heading.
- I have established the parameters. What examples of non criminal, fallible or morally incorrect actions may I give? Venial sin involving limited moral blame such as uncharitable and unfriendly attitudes leading to insincerity: - The essence may well not be serious moral impropriety in itself as such instances may be unintentionally driven characteristics of these actors on the human stage, which are difficult to discard. Decision making may be regarded as misaligned by some, although perfectly lawful, and conducted through the proper channels. I am writing of conduct which requires a finely tuned conscience schooled in prayer and thoughtfulness to comprehend truly.
- The actor at the centre may call upon all the powers of legal ownership, control and responsibly exercised free will with properly educated and informed thinking. At the end of the day it comes down to conscience for everyone lead by example and guidance. That way the truly correct moral solution will emerge I am sure. Of course each person must “listen” and obey the inaudible “voice” of his conscience within himself or herself. Otherwise we become morons floating like flotsam and jetsam on the surface of life.
- When, if ever, can it be right to do something the doer believes to be right, but several significant and influential persons believe to be wrongful conduct. Others for their part may support this criticised doer. I say do not fly in the face of opposition but still “stick to your guns”. Make the situation diplomatic and non-confrontational. There will always be a way through the criticism. I accept there will be doubters yes, but trust yourself. If we are not careful we will become putty in the hands of time servers. The strong and good man will stand up for what is right and it is vital he does so or other men will not see his stand and be inspired. If he neglects his duty our society may suffer. It will not be the place men and sycophants who change and defend this World of ours, so precious to us all.
To simply give way to a vocal chorus of filibustering and furious opposition is to abdicate one’s rightful position. That is cowardice, always face the music I urge you. If we abandon our principles we become weaklings and men of no substance. Do not be intimidated in the pursuit of goodness and the true values. Don’t be afraid of sorrow. It can cause goodness.
- Yes what I mean is do not be perturbed to act wrongly in the eyes of some to do right in the eyes of God. That way you will secure stability for yourself and your family and your friends, and even your Countrymen, whilst acting according to your conscience. This does take courage, but if you know your limitations, your strength of conviction will prevail. This is leadership at work and the heart of the cogency I yearn for in this short essay.
The purpose of this essay is to concentrate on the meaning of morality in the lives of individuals. If someone conducts his affairs sensibly and legally our Judges and Doctors will protect him from outside interference in those affairs. I say no one may tell another what to think, say, do or write, if he is acting within our law. By the same case none may dictate to another that he must refrain from uttering the spoken word or written word on a subject or stop acting in a certain way if he is conducting himself lawfully. In the private and public domains we depend on the 18th Century principle of toleration. I say do not condemn your neighbour in your heart and mind, let alone by penal action. May he go about his lawful business unimpeded by his fellow countrymen. We are not expected to understand our neighbour’s thinking nor sympathise with his beliefs. English law has been built on these principles for the best part of 250 years.
Our Judges have defined and improved these tenets in our unwritten constitution with Parliament’s moral and tacit support. My pro-Death Sentence stand is unpopular in the establishment and calls for toleration. I will defend the right of those against the Death Penalty to argue their case as I expect them to allow me to put my pro-Death Sentence case in a lawful manner. I will act under the principles of toleration and I call for an open and sincere debate in the interests of free speech. England & Wales is known worldwide for espousing that fundamental right for centuries and guarding it.