“Despite the unsolvable problem before us, that does not preclude the possibility of improving the human bonds that connect us. I argue improving these bonds must be the primary focus of our political system, as politics remains the uniting force within civil society and is fundamentally inescapable for even the most ignorant.”
Astronomy postulates the method of creation was the Big Bang. This theory explains that from a single point, a change occurred, and the universe began expanding from said point roughly 13.8 billion years ago. Now, we are at the same distance from that event. However, as we can observe, this expansion does not occur equidistantly across all areas because otherwise, structures such as galaxies and solar systems could not form. The universal phenomenon of gravity is explained in the following analogy. By creating gravitational pockets, miniature systems of stability exist despite the ever-expanding universe. For gravity, as the distance doubles, the effect becomes one-fourth of what it would have been in a logarithmic function related to distance. Therefore, anything outside of this stable pocket remains largely unaffected and victim to the inertia of the universe. Gravity counterbalances the entropic nature of energy because without gravity, all mass, and therefore heat, would spread equally throughout the cosmos, preventing chemical reactions from occurring.
Because humans like to create timelines, many have proposed theories explaining how the universe will someday end. The earliest theory was called the Big Crunch. The Big Crunch postulates that over time, as greater mass accumulates with itself, it will eventually overpower the expansionary forces of the big bang. Further, the theory hypothesizes that this crunch leads to the condensation of matter to an infinitesimally dense point, from which the Big Bang will repeat itself in a rebounding motion, as though time itself is a closed loop.
The second theory has observed that, thus far, the stable gravitational structures appear to travel from each other. As a result, others have proposed the idea of the Big Freeze. In this scenario, the entropic nature of heat will eventually cause a “freeze” throughout the universe as all stars eventually burn out over time. Additionally, the stable systems will spread so far apart that no new reactions, and therefore no new stars, will be possible. As we currently understand the universe, the only way to create heat is through these reactions. Therefore, as the stable systems run out of fuel, reactions will cease, leaving the universe a hair above absolute zero for all eternity.
Recently, a third theory, one that is most relevant to the analogy I am attempting to draw, has arisen. The third theory is called the “Big Rip.” Due to observing not only the expansion but the acceleration thereof, this theory contends that eventually, the universe will expand so rapidly that even these previously safe harbors can be ripped apart from the inside. Through this process, accelerating expansion will gradually overtake the force of gravity until even the bonds between atoms themselves cannot withstand the overwhelming power of dark matter (the hypothesized force behind the acceleration).
The purpose of this article is not to debate creationism and its theology but to provide an analogy to our modern political ethos. In my view, the Big Rip theory is by far the most dramatic and interesting and best expresses the existing tension within our political system; it illustrates the interaction of opposing forces that must exist and yet can never truly stand resolved. Yet, if we choose to simply ignore the destructive forces, they will spell the destruction of civil society.
Despite the unsolvable problem before us, that does not preclude the possibility of improving the human bonds that connect us. I argue improving these bonds must be the primary focus of our political system, as politics remains the uniting force within civil society and is fundamentally inescapable for even the most ignorant. However, the phenomenon observed within the Big Rip still remains in full effect, tearing these bonds for the sake of deconstruction and self-actualization. This is in spite of the fact that self-actualization is paradoxical and cannot be found without understanding one’s own role within the system he is actively seeking to destroy. Therefore, democratic systems, in particular, must be wary of this destructive nature as the very nature of self-government aligns itself with individualism. In order to counteract the destructive forces found within human nature, there must be a bonding force that prevents society from ripping apart, just as gravity currently does within our own universe. A successful democracy can, therefore, operate as a safe political bubble, but it cannot do so self-sufficiently.
“We can compare the ripping destructive force of universal expansion to the conditions that strengthen our vices, like the destruction of public morality in favor of tolerance and the celebration of immoral behavior. This behavior is not mere toleration of immoral behavior because we are all sinners, it is the destruction and dismissal of any standards of right and wrong and the redefinition of morality into an ethos of ‘do no harm.’”
I define the safe political bubble as these stable gravitational systems, for example, a galaxy. Our galaxy can be compared to democracy, statistically the best form of government in terms of representation, material prosperity, and limitation of tyrannical destruction. However, the good, practical results of democracy cannot originate from theory alone. After all, democracy is only as good as the people in it, and one cannot create a good product out of awful materials. This simple observation forces us to acknowledge that democracy should be considered as a tool rather than an end. I would even suggest that because of its representative form of government, democracy possesses the greatest possibility for evil and the greatest propensity for self-destruction. If a democratic regime commits the same evil acts as a totalitarian regime, how much greater is the evil if inflicted by your fellow citizens rather than a faceless regime?
French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed the following: “We have gotten a democracy, but without the conditions which lessen its vices and render its natural advantages more prominent; and although we already perceive the evils it brings, we are ignorant of the benefits it may confer.” We can compare the ripping destructive force of universal expansion to the conditions that strengthen our vices, like the destruction of public morality in favor of tolerance and the celebration of immoral behavior. This behavior is not mere toleration of immoral behavior because we are all sinners, it is the destruction and dismissal of any standards of right and wrong and the redefinition of morality into an ethos of “do no harm.”
Material prosperity on its own is not an indicator of sinful nature, nor is it sinful to be ambitious for modest wealth for a righteous purpose. However, material prosperity can act as an accelerant for our worst impulses. These impulses, found within the human condition, are the driving force behind this acceleration and the sacrifice of moral goods on the altar of equality. The most destructive impulses are not driven by greed or hatred but seek to exalt man beyond his status as an imperfect creation of God. Paradoxically, the views that profess the exalted nature of man sever the bonds that grant us a different ontological category entirely. Severing our connection to the heavens in favor of building a paradise of Earthly ideals can never lead to the view of man necessary for the utopian vision of humanitarianism. Even the tallest mountains can never even brush the stars.
Love of God and love of neighbor. These are the two greatest commandments upon which all others are found in the Christian way of life. However, expansionary forces have begun to overcome gravity; these two have been separated from one another, leading to a privatization of Christian morality. Christian charity has been redefined as the humanitarian impulses most of us possess. However, the religion of humanitarianism is merely a cheap imitation of Christian charity, mimicking the form of godliness but denying its power. Ironically, this sort of thinking can only take root in a post-Christian society, as other societies do not possess these impulses, thus leading to the phenomenon observed by Tocqueville.
This brings us back to the original point that we have observed. Democracy is not self-sustaining and relies on outside sources for support. Without these outside institutional forces, our natural human impulse will tear apart the very fabric it claims to defend ceaselessly. The solution to this is not a theocracy but returning Christian values and ethics to public life. One could write the greatest Constitution and the most perfect laws that could ever be conceived, but unless just people enforce them, they are naught but words on paper no more valuable than this essay. The humanitarian ethos adopts the universalist nature of Christianity and then removes its substance, leaving a Marxist amalgamation of loving one another and rejecting what one knows to be true out of a sense of duty. The logical conclusion of this idea leads to the destruction of reasonable boundaries, religious standards, and all forms of righteous discrimination between right and wrong. After all, who are we to judge another if we are all sinners, and why should we consider ourselves better than another?
One could write a thousand pages on this topic and barely scratch the surface of the underlying tension that exists between democracy, morality, and the practical nature of either. However, just as the universe operates under seemingly opposing forces, we must design our imperfect political systems within the tension that exists regardless of our efforts. It is a problem with no solution that, if ignored, will spell the death of all polities throughout the world. Perhaps instead of looking forward for solutions, we should rely on the wisdom of our elders. The progressive additions to the American experiment, namely removing religion from the public square, sexual liberation, and exaltation of the self at the expense of common goods, have obliterated our underlying notions of what it means to live within society. Does society have a common purpose, or are individuals doing what they wish and held together out of common rational interests? If it is the former, we must admit that there are other concerns beyond simple material prosperity that can act as gravity within the system to stabilize. If it is the latter, there remains little point for anything beyond the individual soul.
However, despite my previous critique of individualism, I will propose that improving the individual soul is the key to overcoming the destructive force of moral relativism. Perhaps this seems counterintuitive, so allow me to explain. Accept my premise that you cannot build a virtuous city without virtuous people, and consequently, even if the laws were perfect, if the people therein are not good and just, society cannot be good and just. Therefore, we must order the city in a manner to educate the populace with the intention of creating good and just people.
Perhaps paradoxically, despite all of these concerns, the question remains the same one asked by the Ancient Greeks: What is virtue, and how do we practice it? By creating virtuous people, we can overcome the phenomenon observed by Tocqueville, so we may use our natural advantages built within democratic systems. When we discuss virtue, we must tie it to freedom, or else the two terms will be meaningless. Freedom cannot exist without some choice, and virtue cannot exist if it is forced upon you. Freedom itself means more than just choosing; choice is a necessary component, and it’s a component we should balance with a strong moral order.
Written by: Ian Farris
Senior Contributor and Editor at the Cougar Chronicle
The Cougar Chronicle is an independent student-run newspaper and is not affiliated with Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Cover Photo Source: https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/33481