‘Freedom’ and the Golden Rule
Pittbull’s recent rap tune titled “Freedom,” is a classic hedonistic musical moral pollutant. Consider the philosophy of these lines:
“Feel free, do whatever you want whenever you want with whoever you want. Feel free, who cares what they say?”
That is raw selfishness at its best. It is a “Me-centric” world, egocentrism on steroids. It gives no vale to the interest and welfare of others. It is all about me.
Imagine what this country would be if our founders had come ashore with banners blazing “Do whatever you want whenever you want with whoever you want.”
There is no freedom without boundaries. Boundaries protect persons and property. Within them there is freedom. Without them there is anarchy and nihilism, where everybody
does what they want at the expense of others.
At one time I thought the Ten Commandments were negative as applied to me. Then I realized how positive they are as applied to others. An example of their positive character is this: “You shall not kill me. You shall not steal my possessions. You shall not bear a false witness against me.” Without those restraints you would be free to kill me, steal from me, and lie about me. In turn, I can’t do those things to you.
The British scholar C. S. Lewis insisted there is an ageless universal basic code of moral law he called “Tao,” better known as Natural Law, or Traditional Morality, or the First Principle of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes. They are the source of all value judgments. They are as basic in moral life as gravity is to natural law. In light of these standards, Bull’s code of conduct is the pits.
A classic example of Tao is found in an ancient principle so basic that since 1674 it has been called “The Golden Rule,” which simply stated is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The ancient Jewish scholar Hillel summed up the Torah as, “What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor.”
In 500 B. C. the Greek scholar Thelese, when asked how people can live together, said, “If we never do ourselves what we blame in others.”
Confucius echoed it as, “Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you.”
The moral principles opposed to “Bullosophy” are represented as being repressive, and they are. They repress subjective selfishness. For your welfare to be protected, the selfish appetites of others as well as yours have to be controlled.
Not everyone in our society has high moral, ethical, and spiritual standards. There are many devoid of these admirable traits. Of such people Patrick Henry said, “A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom.”
One definition of license is: “excessive or undue freedom or liberty.” It is excess that causes more laws and restraints to be necessitated.
Conduct like “Bullism” advocates eventually implodes. It was said of ancient Greece that when the freedom they sought most was the freedom from responsibility that they ceased to be free.
There was a time that when people violated a moral, ethical, or spiritual principle they felt guilty. Presently, many feel a cheater’s high. Being bad feels good. That is the track on which our society seems to be.