Notes #1

When we speak of right and wrong, we actually say “congruent or incongruent to a certain set of criteria”. These sets of criteria may be explicit (for example written laws) or implicit (for example personal emotions); in every case they are shared by a bigger or smaller social cells, where the individual is the smallest possible entity. Finding acceptance for a judgement requires its expression towards someone who belongs to the same social group and follows the same reasoning/ interpretation (not considering the “random” approval by someone from a different group, whose set of criteria delivers for this specific situation the same result).

Some circumstances aren’t open for discussion, such as gravity, the rythm of day and night and the different seasons, reproduction, birth and death and some others. Refering to those “eternal truths” we create a system of belief and its very first sentences already determine our moral and judgement. Religion is an attempt to answer questions of origin and nature. The supposed existence of a creator introduces in the very same moment of its establishment the idea of something bigger, wiser and mightier than ourselves. Concepts like salvation or innocence heavily rely on this concept. While we have moved to a more individualistic conception, where philosophy of mind and intentionality have gained ground, innocence is nonexistent. Only its substantial core (being uncontested in ones actions) remains intact, even though we now use expressions like “self-fulfilment” or “pursuit of happiness”.

Can we even relate to what “innocence” must have meant to people in the middle ages? Can we even translate it to our present vocabulyary? Therefore, we would need to know the premises of ancient belief systems, but they remain invisible.

Modern nation states are trying to provide fields of action for numerous protagonists with their individual sets of criteria. Late 19th century laizism is the attempt to integrate catholics, protestants and constitutionalists into the same social group by providing a different, superior set of criteria for each judgement. The fear of violence (and in last consequence of prison) is a heuristic shortcut that substitutes the belief in the concept.