Okay, I’ll admit, I couldn’t think of a better title, it is a short post though. Actually the things I wanted to talk about were kind of dispersed and thus I couldn’t land on an encompassing title. So, I had been noticing the displeasure that people feel from being told that there needs to be an authority, for a long time I thought that it was obvious that authorities (or an authority) are essential. I noticed that whenever the concept of an authority or authorities is thought of, an image comes up in the head, of a tyrant ready to beat whoever doesn’t follow the rules, and a sense of oppression is generated. I reckon the issue is actually with the concept of authority itself.
Think, for a moment, a world without an authority, everyone living their own lives, minding their own business, right? No. There will be chaos, if someone’s business is to murder, they for sure will mind their own business, why shouldn’t we also mind it? But why? Why should we mind their business? Because we have defined our morals such that that can’t be not minded. The question of morality applied with degree of consequences comes to fruition. So, first a moral value is defined and then an authority is made to make sure that that rule is applied. Now this “morality” needs to be defined with its varying consequences, for example; if a juvenile steals from a shop, why should he be sent to reformation institutions and not be hanged to death? Governments are the literal drivers of the future of the people, they are in part gods, that have their own set of rules, own ideology, and there is death penalty, maybe not for rape or murder but for sure for treason (i.e. not following/ betraying the authority’s ideals), not following orders of the higher command, which I’d call is equivalent of apostasy and or blasphemy for that state. Essentially a crime is of a degree so high that death is the punishment. Seems obvious? Not really.
Everything that you do, that you, you personally think is fine to do, it will have a counterpart and that counterpart will be of the same degree as your act. For example, if you just saved a life, the counterpart would be killing someone, the weight of saving someone equals in degree (not morality) to murder, with respective consequences. That degree defines reward and punishment and you’ll see this all over the world, at least this is the best model; how much a region values the good is how much it’ll be harsh on the bad.
I’ve heard it already, “there are a lot of grey areas”, I’ve had those phrases manifest over the heads of people with this line of authority, the problem with that is that, well, where is that grey area, just because one is saying it doesn’t necessitate on the whole paradigm, those grey areas I’d call as exception, and here’s a thing about exceptions; exceptions by definition aren’t the rules.
Governments need to exist, there is no escape because the existence of governments are the proof of human morals, and those morals’ regard in society define reward and punishment and that scale of reward and punishment drive the region to catastrophe or glory. Maybe it’ll come to some as a disappointment that there’s no escape from governments, from authority that can literally define when you need to die and when you are allowed to live. The utopian concept of different ideas living in a single nation is calamitous, I don’t mean different ideas as in “art” etc. I mean in morality, in the concept of defining the goal and the forbidden. The goal isn’t to have no governments, but to have a governing body that has the best set of morals defined in its paradigm, and the rewards are just as highly valued as the punishments of high degree are well implemented.