Relative Rules

J.P likes to stereotype me as a moral relativist during our political debates.  It is always dangerous debating with a professional lawyer - but my personality can't avoid the temptation.  At the heart of our many debates centered around the rule of law, is the issue of relativism. 

Our Forefathers used deliberate words in the Declaration of Independence  -- "truths", "self-evident",  "unalienable Rights", "among these", "their Creator", "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God", "Supreme Judge of the world".  I interpret the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution) as principles for "one people", "created equal" to use for establishing "relative rules" to govern behavior (civil and moral behavior).

The Healthcare Mandate was reviewed last week by the Supreme Court Justices.  I believe the core of the issue is the definition of Liberty (one of the unalienable Rights specifically identified among those that are self-evident).  The key question is whether Liberty is absolute or relative?

I think it is both - spoken just like a relativist :)   My definition of liberty is self-evident to me.  Your definition of liberty is self- evident to you.  And when those definitions differ - we look to a Supreme Judge.  Absent a judge, the definitions are resolved in war  (hence the Declaration of Independence and  the Revolutionary War). Yet, I do believe there is absolute truth.  The problem is that absolute truth is only known by "their Creator".  Interesting the Forefathers didn't say THE Creator.

When is a relativist wrong?   When he argues with God :)       

And to paraphase a previous quote that I just read in "The Behavior Gap" and heard in the movie "A Thousand Words":

"We make rules" ......    God laughs