https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2019/10/13/the-difference-between-being-law-abiding-and-decency/I was rightfully challenged by the fact that, on this blog, I say that an atheist can be a (seven-)law abiding gentile. That is to say, that he can avoid the acts forbidden in the 7 laws. But the challenge comes in the fact that I also find a godless worldview to be reprehensible and utterly vile. I find godlessness or atheism to be the gutter of thinking and morality. I find the innate hypocrisy in an atheist or God-rejector trying to push his opinion as truth to be contemptible.
So how can I have it both ways, to say an atheist can be law abiding yet find his worldview despicable?
I think that when this supposed dilemma is considered, then the supposed contradiction disappears.
What does it mean to be law abiding according to the seven laws I talk about? Remember, when I talk about the seven laws, I’m not talking about the overreach called “the Divine Code” which goes tries to cover Gentile morality on a whole, not simply the seven laws. I hold a Talmudic view of the seven laws, maybe the Maimonides view: only those acts which get the death penalty in a righteous Gentile court. I keep listing the seven and I enjoy doing so.
An atheist can avoid worshiping false gods as if they were gods. An atheist can have no trace of cursing God on his lips. An atheist can have had no sexual relations with his family members, with another man’s wife, had no homosexual relations or had no taste of bestiality. An atheist may have never killed a person or taken anything himself without permission. (I have to stress himself since many people are statists and commission the state-gang to steal for them.) Athiests may even choose to have nothing significant to do with a unjust state.
So yes, an atheist or God-rejector can avoid the acts that bring the death penalty. He is therefore law abiding.
Now, does this make the God-rejecting gentile a decent and moral person? Does that mean his views and ideas are sound and worthy of respect?
Do I need to spell out the answer?
Of course, the person can avoid certain acts and still be an arsehole. You didn’t think I was gonna be so blunt, did you? But do you think avoiding idol worship means that a person does it for the right reasons? Do you think just because a person doesn’t kill you or steal from you that he is going to respect you or avoid disrespecting you?
A person with any familiarity with the legal system constructed in their own land will know that a person can avoid doing stuff to get him caught by the local state-thug – a “pig,” the filth, the blue costumed gang member, a cop – yet there is no law compelling such a person to be nice, thoughtful or educated. Yeah, going to school doesn’t make you educated. In fact, even passing exams doesn’t mean a person thinks critically and may be more of a sign that such a person knows how to bleat like a sheep with precision. That means that person just knows how to follow orders and do as he’s told. But I believe that in most countries, there is no legal requirement to be nice, moral or sound minded. And it’s the same with the basic seven laws.
So yes, you avoided the courts, you may be law abiding, but that doesn’t make you free from disgusting ideas.
The seven laws is a law system. It definitely is the basis for morality, but not the exhaustive list of right and wrong. It’s by building upon it, pondering it, interrogating it, gaining empathy and awareness of others, it’s through application of one’s inner man to treating others well that makes one decent. And it’s through critical thinking and a testing of one’s own philosophical foundations, even ripping them to shreds to check them, that a person can be more mentally sound.
And there is nothing mentally sound about having a worldview where there is no truth and then challenging others with opinions as if they are truth. If such a thing is done to deceive others, it is not moral either. And if a person who has no truth, like a God-rejector, tries to convince others of some truth, then it’s most likely a sign of serious mental inconsistency or it is an attempt to deceive. I wonder if there are any other options. Hmmm…
So, to conclude, being law abiding doesn’t mean one is free from evil, stupid or insane thoughts. It doesn’t mean they don’t do bad acts. Just because a court cannot get you, that doesn’t mean in all other senses of morality and knowledge you are fine.
Topic: The difference between being law abiding and decency (Read 1557 times)