Today we shall finally answer the question, can a society be moral or immoral, but not before answering some reader questions received via the Aethosphere:

Dear Spiritual Advocate,
Where do you get these questions from? Are they real?
- Tell me now.

Dear Tell, They are as real as you are.

Dear Spiritual,
Are you against the law? I mean, being Spiritual and all, isn't that unconstitutional?
- Nervous

Dear Nervous, being spiritual is not against the Constitution of The United States of America. The confusion over this is the separation of Church and State, a concept not understood clearly these days, and being bandied about in a very irresponsible manner. "Why," one may ask, "Can the ACLU remove a monument of the Ten Commandments, yet allow the Muslim "Call to Prayer" to be blared out over loudspeakers?"

The answer dear Nervous is that they are two different issues. One is some sort of misguided attempt to say that a religious monument on government property illegally endorses a given religion, while the other is a noise ordinance. The fact that both issues impinge on religion in some way is a minor coincidence, made much of by irresponsible people. But we have Constitutional guarantees allowing freedom of religious expression by individuals and the right to assembly, and so, Spirituality is in fact protected by the Constitution.

Continuation from last week. The question:

Yo, Eyeball dude person, can societies be immoral or moral?
- Pontious

Dear Pontious, It is time now to address the concept of 'the common good'. And so we embark on a great presumption on the part of The Spiritual Advocate. There are probably as many potential definitions of common good as there are people on the planet. But, it is important to have a starting point, and thus it is written:

By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."

Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.

Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

I submit that with these concepts we can reach consensus on the concept of the common good. But, to elaborate just a bit more:

Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."

The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around." This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.

And so, the issue of moral or immoral societies in the opinion of The Spiritual Advocate hinges on the character of the leadership and whether or not the common good is being served by that authority. In case it did not dawn on you through the three posts, the common good was not defined in terms of any specific gender or nationality. Rather, it applies to every human being on this planet, without exception.

So, to answer the question can societies be immoral or moral? it seems clear that yes, one can judge a society within these concepts and determine which is moral and which is immoral.

The unasked question is "What to do with an immoral society?" Ψ

Continuation from last week. The question:

Yo, Eyeball dude person, can societies be immoral or moral?
- Pontious

last week there was much discussion of Authority and Common Good. Some may find this constant reference to authority confusing or threatening. But, lo, it is written:

"Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching(s)... have elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Again with the common good.

Authority, what is it good for? Perhaps we should refer to legitimate authority. As follows:

"Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

...The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will."

Now, we come to the issue of authority, and its relation to a moral or immoral society:

"Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.

Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."

That is a lot to digest. We shall continue anon with The Common Good.

Dear Spiritual Advocate,
What's up with Advocate? Are you some sort of lawyer?
-Uncle Buck

Dear Uncle,
I am an advocate of thought. A wind. A flame. Not so much in a lawyer sense. More in the sense of supporter or defender; intercessor. Paraclete has been translated as Advocate. Ψ

Dear Spirit Dude, What did you learn from the whole Janet Jackson Boob Incident?
- Wondering

Dear Wondering, What I learned is that in the United States a white man can forcibly rip the clothing from a black woman, and the black woman will be reviled and scorned and the white man will suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Dear Spiritual Advocate, What did you learn from the Matrix movies?
- Neowannabe

Dear Neowannabe, I learned that sometimes, no matter how badly a movie seems to scream for a sequel, it should not be made. Especially twice.

Yo, Eyeball dude person, can societies be immoral or moral?
- Pontious

Dear Pontious, No soundbite answers available here. This requires some set up and some sort of starting point that we can agree upon.

First we need to determine what is meant by society and what is meant by moral or immoral. You may find it odd that I shall choose to use circular definitions as it may be most beneficial to view the two concepts as being interrelated and codependent. One problem with Western thought is the tendency to strip things down and attempt to isolate them from anything else in order to gain insight into their ‘true’ essence. Ignoring the fact that some sort of interrelatedness is part of, or perhaps in fact is, our true essence.

Society being a word used to describe the actions and purposes of multiple persons, definitions of society involve how society is ordered towards individuals. It is therefore written:

“Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.”

But, what is ‘the common good’? And what is this about the ‘exercise of authority’? It is written:

“By ‘authority’ one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience to them.

“Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.”

Common good again.

And so it is written further:

“A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an ‘heir’ and receives certain ‘talents’ that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop. He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.”

Hmmm. Authority and common good again.

We shall leave this for now and allow some digestion and some questioning. We shall take this up in the next issue. Ψ