Introduction
Right and wrong are concepts considered to emanate from one’s behavior. Both notions are debatable since what is accepted in a given setup can be viewed as wrong in a different setting. People are considered to be right when they follow various set rules and regulations in a given entity or environment in which they live. On the other hand, wrong is any activity that is considered to be against the laws, morality, culture, and ethics that are held by a given society. It also entails conducts that are against justice and equity. This essay provides insight into the differences that exist between rights and wrong in regards to justice based on the three readings from the book ‘A World of Ideas’.
Stephen L. Carter’s Separation of the Church and State
According to Carter’s article on the Separation of the Church and State, much of his ideas are drawn from the understandings of the separationists concerning religion and secular lives. These people hold the idea that in any given American society, some significant restraints should be subjected to justice for religious purposes (Carter 293). The implementation of such ideas in the justice system is considered wrong. For instance, when a policy is either supported or opposed by the politicians, a closer examination to investigate whether it is derived from a religious or secular background is done. For such reasons, it is wrong for the public to influence the policy negatively by appealing to either the religious or secular reasons (Carter 293).
In a setup whereby the separationists dominate the locality, the implementation of public policy should be done in such a way that it conforms to the desire of everybody. This state of affairs can be accomplished by considering the religious, pluralistic, and separationist points of view among others. Owen reveals that people, groups, and organizations perceive right and wrong differently (4). In this case, it can be wrong for one group of society (deemed as the majority) to justify their rightness based on the plausibility of their numbers (Owen 4).
Another justification to show that the separation of the church from state is wrong is seen where most religious beliefs are used exclusively in the private sectors. In such situations, the public is barred from using such beliefs (Bunge 18). This act should be abandoned owing to the important roles the churches play in shaping the public domain in the right direction. For example, in his article ‘Separation of Church and State’, Carter confessed that he met a Christian minister who had a drug rehabilitation program (294).
He elaborated on the benefits of religion in rehabilitating drug users (Bunge 18). Although such programs were not supported by the state, their results were far above the expectations of the agencies that were defeated in the first place (Carter 293). The failure of the government to support the religious organization through funding is wrong. To correct such issues, a clear understanding of the metaphorical statement of the separation of the church and state should be put in place. Such an idea of separation should rather be codified based on morality as a requirement for the citizens irrespective of their roles in society (Carter 293).
According to the Lemon Test, public policy is required to institute a secular purpose that is non-religious concerning the state action. This test requires the state to restrict the religion from the public. Such action is bound to affect the policies. It is perceived as the separation of the public from the religion (Carter 295). Although the separation is viewed to be impartial, it has given a new dimension to the public that is more secular (Carter 293).
Rene Descartes’ Fourth Meditation of Truth and Error
It can be noted from the Descartes’ fourth meditation of truth and error that God exists. According to Descartes and Cottingham, God cannot lie since He is the creator of the mediator; hence, He handles His freedom and judgment (38). The bone of contention is noted in the third statement that God is responsible for His judgment that leads to an error (Descartes and Cottingham 38). Descartes acknowledged that man was the intermediate between God and nothingness (2).
It was stated that God is not a deceiver because he is supreme, infinite, and powerful. The ability to commit error is because the mediator is finite. The lack of the infinite aspect of being is prone to act in the nothingness. Due to this idea, he blames God for bringing about his errors. Therefore, it is wrong for Descartes to accuse God of committing his errors (Descartes and Veitch 2).
Furthermore, the article reveals that Descartes acknowledged that he cannot comprehend God’s creation. The proponent held that the perfection of the creation was more understandable when it was examined as a universe rather than conducting investigations on one creature (Descartes and Cottingham 38).
The mediator in Descartes’s article realized that God provided him with two important items namely knowledge and freedom. Further understanding revealed that the scope of the knowledge was so much limited while that of the freedom was limitless. Therefore, his errors arose from his failure to control the boundaries of the freedom to conform to the knowledge limits (Descartes and Cottingham 40). In conclusion, it was wrong to accuse God of being responsible for making the mediator go astray. The errors resulted from the misuse of the knowledge and freedom that he possessed.
Martin Luther King, Jr., the Defense of Injustice
Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham jail was written as a response to a statement of concern and warning that was issued by the white religious leaders of the South who supported the injustices. Martin Luther King Jr. was worried about the unjust laws that were formulated to act against the people with colored skin.
As a result, he specified that ‘A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God while unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (Luther and Vivian 254). He further noted that “just laws should uplift human personality while unjust laws degrade human personality” (Luther and Vivian 254).
Luther and Vivian clarified that it is wrong to uphold the unjust laws since every person has both legal and moral responsibilities to obey evenhanded laws only (254). Such people should also have an ethical obligation to disobey and shun the unjust laws (Luther and Vivian 254). Martin Luther King Jnr. showed an example of unjust laws that were used by the Nazis regime in the Netherlands. Such laws had downgrading effects on people besides creating differences amongst them. It is noted in the latter that injustices must be constantly checked to ensure that they do not spread. Consequently, it is wrong to create unjust laws that lead to the mistreatment of people.
Works Cited
Bunge, Mario. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ethics: The Good and The Right. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Print.
Carter, Stephen. Reflections on the Separation of Church and State, 2002. Web.
Descartes, René and John Cottingham. René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print.
Descartes, René and John Veitch. Discourse on the Method and the Meditations New York, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2008. Print.
King, Martin Luther, and C.T. Vivian. “Letter from Birmingham jail.” Arguing About Law 1.1 (2013): 254. Print.
Owen, Judd. Religion and the demise of liberal rationalism: the foundational crisis of the separation of church and state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Print.