Chuck suggested some discussion on existentialism, and I think that's a good idea. But first I want to wrap up some things in regard to post-modernism. Following are the beginning and ending of a paper by Arthur Leff in the Duke Law Journal from 1979. Leff was a law professor at Yale, and from what I understand, he never gave another lecture on the philosophy of justice. Could it have been that he was confused, in a Nietzschean sort of way.

Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law

I want to believe--and so do you--in a complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe--and so do you--in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good and to create it.

skip to end of article

All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us "good," and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable to us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless:

Napalming babies is bad.

Starving the poor is wicked.

Buying and selling each other is depraved.

Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot--and General Custer too--have earned salvation.

Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned.

There is in the world such a thing as evil.

[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.

Wow. That just goes to show you, or me anyway, that if you reason well enough you can hardly miss the truth. Unless your heart is hardened. Which unfortunately is the condition of most people.

Remember the syllogisms?

If God does not exist, then morality cannot be justified.

God does not exist.

Morality cannot be justified.

But morality exists.

Heaven help us. (Leff's words)

One of the first things you learn when you study logic is that if your conclusion (that morality cannot be justified) is truly unacceptable, but it follows from your premises, you have to go back and examine your premises. But Leff, and the rest of the modern/postmodern world, is committed to those first two premises. That leads to quite a conundrum. That was Nietzsche's conundrum, too. But in his more brazen moments Nietzsche thought we, or at least one of us, would evolve past it. It should be fairly obvious we can't, and won't. (Unless you count becoming like Christ a type of 'evolution.' Thanks be to God, huh? But I digress.)

In the body of that article from Leff above, he discusses some options that could plausibly explain how legitimate ethical systems develop, assuming there is no God all the while. One option is that each individual decides what is right and wrong for himself. But, what governs the interactions between two 'Godlets' [Leff's word] when they disagree and conflict with one another? There still would have to have some lawgiver (ie God) who could govern those interactions, or there would be no ethical system. This is obviously a problem. Whoever the lawgiver is it would have to be eternal and infinite (ie God). This is one of the problems with Nietzsche. How could Man evolve into something transcendent, something that is eternal and infinite? Leff recognizes all this.

Another of Leff's options, the postmodern option, is that whatever is right is what is right for me AND my group or community. Leff doesn't name it postmodern, but that is one of the characteristics of postmodernism, that what is right is determined by me and my community. This allows for some coherence between members of the community. But the problem is that you have just the problems mentioned in the last paragraph back a little farther. But who is going to decide what laws govern the interactions between the different groups? Who is going to decide who wins in conflict, for instance, between homosexuals, Christians, and Muslims? Again, we need an eternal, infinite law giver, or else all we have is power, political, military, or otherwise.

Thus the current dilemma created by postmodernism. The one solution remaining for a postmodern is constant, interminable 'dialogue'. It is for exactly this reason that the UN opts for constant dialogue, diplomacy, compromise, and negotiation. That is why they balk at enforcing any resolutions they come up with. The use of force is bad, though they can never say why, and all they have is dialogue. Over time this dialogue will get us all to see eye-to-eye. Or so they say. There is a lot of Marxist/Hegelian dialectic in there, too, but it is definitely postmodern.

Thus, modernism itself led to a lot of bloodshed in the bloodiest century ever. It looks as though postmodernism will likely lead to more of the same. Man's attempts to create Utopia always end up creating a place you don't want to live.

So what is left when postmodernism runs its course? There is an article written several years ago by David Hart in First Things called "Christ and Nothing." Those are the two options left. Either go back to Christ or embrace total nihilism. If anyone wants to read that article I can find a link for you.