Not Guilty: A Defence of the Bottom DogBlatchford, Robert
Philosophy
Not Guilty: A Defence of the Bottom Dog
Blatchford, Robert
Criminals; Free will and determinism
Is there any step in the long march of evolution from the first creation
of matter and force to the evolution of man, when the jelly speck, or
the polyp, or the fish, or the reptile, or the beast, or the ape, or the
man, had power to change, or to assist, or to resist the working of the
laws God made?
Is there any step in the long march of evolution, any link in the long
chain of cause and effect, when any one of the things or beings evolved
by law working on matter and force could by act or will of their own
have developed otherwise than as they did?
Is it not plain that man has developed into that which he is by slow
evolution of matter and force, through the operation of divine laws over
which he had no more control than he now has over the revolution of the
suns in their orbits?
How, then, can we believe that man is to blame for being that which he
is?
Is there any quality of body or of mind that has not been _inevitably_
evolved in man by the working of God's laws?
You are not going to tell me that I am answerable or blame-able for the
nature of matter and force, nor for the operations of God's laws, are
you?
You will not suggest that I am responsible for the creation: so long
ago, and I so new, so weak, so small!
God, when He created matter and force and law, knew the nature of matter
and force, and the power and purpose of law. He knew that they must work
as He had made and meant them to work. He knew that we _must_ be as His
agents _must_ make us.
Will He punish or reward us, then, for the acts of His agents: the
agents He made and controlled? Absurd.
But, it may be urged, "man has a soul." So! He got that soul from God.
God made the soul and fixed its powers for good and evil.
It is the soul, then, that is responsible, is it? But the soul did not
create itself, and can only act as God has ordained that it shall and
must act.
If man is not to blame for his own acts he is not to blame for the acts
of his soul; and for the same reason.
"Soul," or "man," "reason," or "conscience," responsibility lies with
the causer, and not with the thing caused.
And God is "The First Great Cause," and how then can God justly punish
any of His creatures for being as He created them?
It is impossible. It is unthinkable. But upon this unthinkable and
impossible absurdity the whole code of divine laws is built.
Therefore the Christian religion is untrue, and man is not responsible
to God for his nature nor for his acts.
CHAPTER TWO--THE LAWS OF MAN
COMMON law and common usage all the world over hold men answerable for
their acts, and blame or punish them when those acts transgress the laws
of custom.
Human law, like the divine law, is based upon the false idea that men
know what is right and what is wrong, and have power to choose the
right.
Human law, like divine law, classifies men as good and bad, and punishes
them for doing "wrong."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account