"Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
The Ten Principles of Freedom: Principles 6 and 7, and the Source of Obligations
(An extract from The Ten Principles of Freedom: A Presentation of the Ten
Principles to the Founding Fathers …)
by
Joseph BH McMillan
Joseph BH McMillan (JBH): I now turn to the Principles, and obligations, which flow from the first five Principles, and in particular, from the only discernable purpose of life being the perpetuation of human life through the union of a man and a woman to create new life.
The first obligation both
parents must have towards the life they create is an obligation not to harm
that life. Now that involves both positive and negative obligations. They have
a positive obligation not to kill that new life, or to use physical violence
against that child (I shall return to the issue of discipline later). On the
negative side, they must not neglect that new life, and that means they have an
obligation to provide nourishment, clothes, shelter, and education for that
child. They also have an obligation to prepare that child to one day become
independent, and to acquaint it with the obligations it will itself have to assume.
If there is such a thing as a ‘law of nature’, then that is the most
fundamental ‘law’ we see operating in nature. Any hunter will tell you of the
danger of finding yourself between a bear and its cub, or a lioness and its
cub, or an elephant and its calf. Most animals spend pretty much all their time
protecting their offspring, and providing for them.
Would you agree with that
assessment of the primary obligations that attach to those who create a new
life?
Founding Fathers (FFs): We
could not disagree!
JBH: In fulfilling those
obligations towards that new life, we can see that the parents will necessarily
have to enter into obligations with third parties as well; for example, they
will have to work to earn the money to buy food, clothing, housing and so on.
But those are subsidiary obligations they undertake to fulfill their primary
obligation towards the life they have created.
The danger, of course, is that
many people are easily led astray. So, as a result of things like your Right to
the pursuit of Happiness, Mr Jefferson, they confuse their subsidiary
obligations with their primary obligations. Therefore, we find parents today
who think that their obligations towards the new life they create should not
interfere with the ‘pleasure’ and ‘fulfillment’ they find in pursuing, for
example, a ‘career’. Such people ‘believe’ that their Right to the pursuit of
Happiness trumps any obligations they have towards the life they create. And
because of their gullibility, and
unadulterated vanity, they are happy to be deluded by ridiculous ‘studies’ and
‘research’ which tell them that this neglect of their obligations towards the
life they create is somehow good for that child, or at least not ‘harmful’. I
shall return later to this quite grotesque will-to-vanity
that plagues so many modern parents. For now, let me return to the obligations
parents have towards their children.
Principle 6 & the Source of Obligations
Let’s call these obligations
Principle 6. Those who create new life have an obligation not to kill or harm
that new life, to protect that new life, and to provide for it. Now, every
human being on this earth has been, to a greater or lesser extent, the
beneficiary of such obligations. These are the first obligations a human being
sees in action; its parents providing for, and protecting it - preserving its
life. When we see them honored, we ourselves learn to honor; when we see them
ignored, we ourselves have contempt for them.
But we also recognize that in
order to protect that new life, we must ensure that others do not harm that
life. And when we reflect on that, we recognize further, that we ourselves
should not harm the lives created by others, since that would expose us to
retaliation which would be a risk to the life we create – and that would be a
breach of our obligation to protect that life. So we would consent not to use
or threaten violence against others so long as they agree to do the same. In
doing so we reduce the risk of others harming the life we create, and we reduce
the risk of losing our own lives. We need life to meet the obligations towards
the life we create, so it makes sense that we should reduce the risk of not
being around to meet our obligations towards our children.
From this emerges the general
Principle against using or threatening violence against others – but its origin
lies in our obligations towards the life we create.
Yet, we reserve the freedom to
defend ourselves against those who do not consent to such an obligation, and
those who breach that obligation.
Thomas Jefferson (TJ): Now, to
me that sounds suspiciously like a Right to Life, would you not say? It is
effectively the same as the sixth Commandment – ‘Thou shalt not kill’.
JBH: Rest assured, Mr
Jefferson, I shall be examining what this Right to Life means in due course.
For now, let me just make some general observations which, hopefully, will draw
a distinction between a Right to Life, and the obligations I have identified
here. First, Principle 6 is rooted in the only discernable purpose of life
being the perpetuation of human life on earth by the union of a man and a woman
to create new life. Secondly, new life can only be created when two cells fuse
bringing together the DNA of the father and mother. No human being can have
life without going through that process - whether in a laboratory, or in the
normal way. Thirdly, that cell is unique and exclusive. It contains the entire
human being. Just as a baby grows into an adult, so this human embryo, or cell,
or whatever we want to call it, grows into a baby. Human life is simply
impossible without being created in this way. Both the baby, and the embryo,
are totally dependent on their parents fulfilling their obligations in order to
enjoy the promise of life. So, by a combination of Principles 5 and 6, those
who engage in the act of creating human life have an obligation not to kill or
harm that human life, and especially not when it is at its most vulnerable.
That obligation arises the minute two people engage in the enterprise the
natural consequence of which is the creation of human life. In fact, as I shall
show when I deal with the next Principle, human beings have obligations towards
the life they may create in the future which predate even any union to create
such life. These Principles tell us that the purpose of sex is the creation and
perpetuation of human life on earth. Therefore, these Principles simply cannot
countenance the sacrifice of life, at any stage, on the altar of carnal
indulgence – whether that carnal indulgence is based on a Right to pursuit of Happiness,
or a Right to
Now let’s contrast that with
the Right to Life. This Right is already enshrined in the Bill of Rights, so
theoretically, should protect, especially, the most vulnerable of the human
species. But yet, the Supreme Court of the United States itself, no less,
‘discovered’ that an amalgam of some other Rights, specifically the Right to
Liberty and the Right to due Process, gives rise to something called a ‘right
to privacy’. Then, hidden in this ‘right to privacy’, they ‘discovered’ a
further ‘right’ – the ‘right to choose’, which gives women a Right to kill the
most vulnerable of the species, and kill them in the most grotesque way. Many
woman, and their male apologists, claim that the unique and exclusive human
being within the womb is somehow that woman’s own body, even though that human
being has its own unique and exclusive DNA which means it can, and often does
have, a different blood group, different color eyes and hair, and even a
different skin color, to its mother. They also claim, quite remarkably, that
this human being does not become human until it can survive outside the womb,
and that is in spite of the fact that it is considerably more dependent on
others outside the womb than it would be inside the womb. But most remarkable
of all is that those who claim that the embryo is not really ‘human’ until a
certain stage of development, cannot demonstrate that human beings need not go
through the stage of cell fusion and division, in order to obtain life. If they
could do that, their arguments may have some credibility. They can’t, of
course.
If there is indeed such a thing
as a ‘right to choose’, then it is a ‘right to choose’ whether or not to engage
in sex; not a ‘right to kill’ a human being who may be created by exercising
the ‘right to choose’ to have sex.
So, Mr Jefferson, this Right to
Life is powerless to protect the most vulnerable of the species from a gross
dereliction of the obligations those who create it have towards it. Enthusiasts
for this slaughter of the innocents will no doubt claim that the courts had
simply discovered one of those ‘rights’ referred to at Amendment IX of the Bill
of Rights, but not specifically enumerated. And that, Mr Jefferson, is the difference
between clearly defined Principles, and this nebulous concept of Rights.
TJ: I get your point!
JBH: So Principle 6 deals with
the obligations parents have jointly and severally towards the new life they
create, and from that emerges the general Principle that we should not use or
threaten violence against others. But those who create life must also have
obligations towards each other because, you will recall, we agreed that any
joint enterprise attaches obligations to the parties involved, and the most
fundamental and important enterprise any human being can undertake is the
creation of new life.
FFs: We agreed with that!
Principle 7 & the Source of Obligations
JBH: So what obligations do the
parties to the creation of life have towards each other, for each other’s
benefit, and, by extension, for the benefit of the life they create?
Regrettably, since human beings
have been so conditioned to believe that joining in a union to create a human
life gives rise to nothing more than ‘loose moral considerations’, breach of
which attracts no penalties at all, I shall have to start consideration of this
Principle at the other end; those obligations which human beings do recognize
as binding, and breach of which does give rise to consequences.
At the top of the pyramid of
obligations are those relating to simple transactions such as buying groceries,
a car, or even a house. These are usually between people at arm’s length who
don’t know each other. Yet even these basic transactions between human beings
give rise to certain obligations – to deliver on the promise, not to deceive by
misrepresentation, not to supply goods unfit for their purpose, and so on.
There are even intricate and sometimes onerous legal obligations to comply
with, especially in transactions such as buying a house or supplying the public
with consumable goods like food. Breach of any of these obligations will give
rise to some penalty or other. In certain cases, a breach can even result in
punitive penalties for the benefit of the injured party, or incarceration for
the wrongdoer. Yet, people are free to enter into such transactions, and they
can also take certain precautions, and make prudent enquiries, before they
enter into them.
The next level down in the
pyramid of obligations arises on a more personal level, like employment. The
employer and employee have obligations towards each other in respect of working
and paying for the work. The employee also has additional obligations, such as
an obligation of confidentiality. But, before an employer enters into a
contract of employment, he will want to know the employee’s history. He will
want to know that he has the qualifications for the job; he will want to know
that the employee has not got a criminal record, especially one that renders
him a risk to the employer’s business, and so on. In simple terms, he will want
to know everything in the employee’s background that will determine whether the
employee is suitable and qualified for the job on offer. And again, breach of
any obligation by the employer or employee gives rise to certain consequences.
Specifically, a deliberate betrayal by the employee, which damages the employer’s
business, can, and usually does, result in serious consequences.
Next on the hierarchy of human
obligations are those of a fiduciary nature, like attorney/client
confidentiality, doctor/patient relationships, the duty of ‘utmost good faith’
in insurance contracts, and the fiduciary obligations of those who manage and
invest other people’s money. These obligations are of an even higher order than
such things as employer/employee obligations, because they require a higher
degree of trust, and they involve the disclosure of information about one
person which could be used to devastating effect against that person if such
obligations did not exist. Such obligations are designed to prevent someone in
a position of trust from abusing that trust, and especially from abusing that
trust to his or her own advantage or benefit.
Now, I expect most, if not all
people, will agree that such obligations are a good thing. And I expect that
they would also agree that a breach of any such obligations should have
consequences, especially if they are the injured party. Would you all agree
with that?
FFs: Yes, we would!
JBH: Fine, so let us look at
the obligations that arise when two people form a union to create new life, and
make comparison with the obligations I have just outlined.
The most fundamental
obligations, and most extensive, come into effect once the union of a man and a
woman has created a new life, because that is the fulfillment of each party’s
purpose of life in perpetuating human life on earth. In order to meet their
respective obligations towards that life, both parties will have had to make
sacrifices and adjustments to their own lives, and thus their individual
freedom, in order to meet those obligations. Each party to the union will also
have revealed to the other the most confidential personal and financial
details, more even than in any fiduciary relationship with third parties like
attorneys or doctors. The sacrifices each party makes are in reliance on the
other party fulfilling his or her obligations – thus a woman who foregoes her
‘career’ to bring up her children does so in reliance on her husband honoring
his obligation to provide for her and their new life. Each party also knows the
habits and routine of the other, thus exposing each party to the risk that the
other could use that knowledge against them. Each party also sacrifices the
freedom they had before the union to provide for their own future financial
security, by agreeing that they will jointly make such provision, both for
themselves, but especially for the life they have created together. Another
factor which makes such a union unique is the fact that neither party can
insure against the other betraying his or her obligations.
But by far and away the most
distinguishing aspect of the union of a man and a woman to create new life is
that the new life has absolutely no say in the matter. The risks are imposed on
it by its parents. The new life is totally vulnerable; at the mercy of its
parents. Thus the obligations that arise when two people impose on another such
risks must surpass any other human obligations.
So what we see from even this
limited list of the uniqueness of this joint human enterprise is that it
transcends, by many multiples, any other joint human enterprise, including
those that give rise to the strictest of fiduciary duties. No other human
enterprise has at its heart, and its purpose, the creation of human life. No
other human enterprise comes even close to the kind of risk each party is
exposed to in such a relationship. And no other human enterprise has as its
objective the fulfillment of the only discernable purpose of life.
So one would imagine that the
obligations which arise from this unique enterprise should be more stringent
and onerous than the obligations that arise from any other joint human
enterprise, even those demanding the highest standards of integrity, honesty,
and dedication. A betrayal of any of these obligations is not just a betrayal
of the other party, but a betrayal of the new life they have jointly created; a
new life, as I have said, that did not ask to be exposed to the risk of
betrayal, has no way of protecting itself from the consequences of a betrayal,
and is the one who will be most devastated by a betrayal.
In the next part of my
presentation I shall examine the specific obligations that arise from the union
of a man and a woman to create new life, and then define the Principle that
emerges from those obligations.
NEXT: The Ten Principles of Freedom: Specific Obligations arising from Principle 7, and Principles 8 to 10.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2007 All Rights Reserved
Joseph BH McMillan is the author of Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights. This article is an abridged extract of his forthcoming book The Ten Principles of Freedom.
Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007