On the Church and LGBTQ

I write this post for those who either are not members of our church and therefore do not understand our position on LGBTQ or who are members and take a contrary position on the topic. I ask that you keep an open mind, and do not dismiss this explanation on purely ideological grounds.

As a social scientist myself, I have something to say on the “science” of homosexuality. The current scientific paradigm of the social sciences, especially sociology, on which this question is premised is called “positivism” or “functionalism.”  Its basic assumptions necessitate a deterministic nature of mankind.  That is, our behaviors are strictly determined – by our genetics, by our environment, and by our social institutions.  Agency or free will, in this view, does not exist.  It is illusory, a figment of the imagination, a mental trick. 

Thus homosexuality is, for these social scientists, caused.  Gays don’t have a choice because choice is not real.  The debate of nature or nurture is, in a meaningful sense, a red herring.  Whether it is one, the other, or both, it is still caused.  Thus the idea that such a behavior is a “sin” is nonsensical.  The is no sin if there is no choice.  We are denigrating behaviors that cannot be helped, which is unjust.

In our faith (and in the more sane corners of the social sciences), the rejection of agency is false.  Agency is REAL.  We have a choice.  Our behaviors are not caused.  They can only be said to be influenced. 

This premise, an “anti-positivist” approach to social science, is pretty well borne out by a lot of research that continues to be ignored.  For example, there is fascinating research on neuroplasticity (how the brain can change itself) and genetic (phenotypic) plasticity (how even our DNA can be changed).  So far acceptance of this research goes only so far as it can be accepted as caused by the environment (in accordance with determinism), but it strongly supports the idea of agency, that we are more than just DNA and flesh.

If we accept voluntarism (agency), then all behavior is chosen.  Certainly, there may be factors that strongly influence one’s choice.  One may be predisposed to a certain behaviors.  One’s social or external environment may influence the availability or desirability of certain behavioral options.  But in the end, behavior is chosen, not caused.

In such a view, homosexuality can indeed be described as an undesirable behavior, one that is destructive to a more ideal and productive social order.  Such a behavior can be socially ostracized to dissuade such behavior.  It is not, if agency is real, unjust to dissuade such behavior because it is not causally determined.  Such social rejection is merely another influencer on the choices individuals make (i.e. it modifies the social influencers).  In fact, research suggests that it is mostly socially/psychologically influenced (the strongest influencers are, e.g., a troubled childhood and social pressure).  That is, it is a rebellion of sorts against the prevailing social structure, not a natural (biological) inclination. Such rebellion against a structure that is perceived to be just and productive can be rightfully denigrated.

Also, a word on marriage.  As a libertarian, I find the idea that the State can choose who does or does not get married morally repugnant.  Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right (note the different spelling), the state has no business licensing marriage.  In my view, churches should decide who can and cannot get married.  If there is a church that wants to marry gay couples, fine, who cares?  But there should be no legal status of “married,” and those who don’t think marriage exists between members of the same sex can simply believe that church’s marriage invalid.

Because the State has inserted itself into deciding who can and cannot get married (because it wants to treat married people differently than single people), the State gets to decide who can and cannot marry.  Thus it is decided by those who “own” the State, i.e. democratically.  That a minority may strongly disagree with the decision is simply too bad.  The State discriminates all the time on behavior.  It discriminates on people’s work (e.g. progressive taxation), on their use of drugs, criminal action, even in some places on their food preferences (e.g. soft-drink bans).  Some of it is just (i.e. their behaviors infringe on the rights of others).  Most of it is not.  But that’s what the State has grown into, and thus it has given itself the right to decide who and who does not get married.  That the LGBTQ community tends to strongly support this government overreach was its own undoing… that is, until it successfully pushed the State to usurp even more power and override even democratic voting.

In short, I get why people think we’re wrong on LGBTQ policy.  They have a different view of the nature of man.  But our view is NOT unreasonable or unjustifiable.  It is JUST AS VALID as a functionalist determinism (this issue goes all the way back to the indeterminacy of the "body-mind problem" in philosophy).  And I certainly cannot understand LDS members that reject the church’s position on the issue.  Do you reject the principle of agency?  If so, you’re probably in the wrong church.  If not, you ought to rethink your position.  

Private Property, Socialism, and the United Order

It has been difficult for many, including myself, to disentangle the differences between the United Order, which we expect to voluntary live at some future time, and communism, the political philosophy that has been tried again and again with very poor results.  I dedicate this post to this disentaglement.

In both the United Order and in communism, property rights are vastly different from the private property rules that we currently live by.  In these, property is, to a large extent, communal, gathered by a central governing organization, and redistributed as seen fit.  As a free market advocate, it seems inconceivable that God would endorse such an order, as it has proven disastrous throughout history (see Venezuela for the most recent example).  But once you understand the underlying mechanisms, we can begin to see how the United Order can work for a righteous people, and indeed may be superior to our current property rights system in terms of generating economic output, where communism instead has wildly underperformed the free market system.

The concept of property derives from the scarcity of goods.  If goods were not scarce, if there was such abundance that one's consumption of some portion of it would in no wise endanger the consumption (current and future) of anyone else, then there would be no need for property.  Consider air.  Air is so abundant and fungible (meaning that one puff of air is as good as the next) that there is no need to squabble over it.  We therefore do not assign property rights over air (no one owns the air they breathe).  But when goods become scarce, there must be some way to allocate them while somehow avoiding disputes.  Having some institutionally established and accepted rules are critical for a society to work.  

Historically, property rights have been allocated on a first-come-first-served basis.  Whoever finds the resources owns them.  Weak property rights protections generally lead to the strongest or most cunning to capture and control the most property.  In the modern era, we have found stronger protections that have allowed the hard workers, creative thinkers, and clever strategists to control more property.  Certainly, this system has proven more economically useful to society, as the "spoils go to victor" now means that the person who creates the most value for society gets rewarded, and not the most ruthless and destructive.

Communist proponents, however, point out that the first-come-first-served resource distribution may put resources in the hands of simply the more lucky and not the more worthy.  Actually, they take this further, claiming that all members of society, worthy or not, deserve the same resource allocation.  As such, they abolish private property rights, claiming all goods to be the property of the collective.  It should be clear by now why this doesn't work.  Without the incentives of being able to keep the benefits of one's own efforts, unmotivated workers produce a decreasing amount that is distributed among an increasing number of shirkers.

But the United Order employs a very different property system.  Rather than adopting a collectivist property rights policy, private property rights are maintained.  However, this property is voluntarily given up to the property manager (bishop).  But why??

The first-come-first-served system is fair inasmuch as there is no way to tell whether one obtained a resource by luck or by effort.  But such a system does not fully allocate resources toward their most productive uses.  Instead, the fortunate and lucky are often rewarded, while those that are more capable remain resource constrained and thereby unable to maximize their potential output.  

The United Order aims to resolve this drawback as much as is possible given the uncertainty of human output.  By redistributing resources both according to need and according to ability, appropriate resources are allocated to those who can create the greatest value with those resources.  Consider the parable of the talents.  While it's a good analogy to what we today call 'talents,' Christ was referring to money (talents were a denomination of money back then).  His conclusion of the parable was clear: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath" (Matt 25:29).  He's talking about the United Order, which is an earthly representation of the divine order. The productive will be given stewardship over more resources, while the unproductive will be given fewer.  This way, as a whole, society produces more, and the economy grows even faster than a pure free market could.  But note the conditions necessary for such success to be obtained.  Participants must willingly give up their income.  The property of each, as distributed, must be accepted and respected.  And finally, the distribution allocated by the bishop must be graciously accepted.  Those who are less productive must be sufficiently humble to acknowledge their weakness and accept a reduced stipend.  This, I believe, will be the toughest for us to accept, and is why it didn't work the first time it was tried.  It is also likely why we're not ready for it yet.  We are a proud people, we like to feel competent, that we are better than others.  We have a hard time accepting criticism.  We offend easily.  Only when we can readily acknowledge that our gifts and weaknesses are of God, we can finally accept our place within this order and find successes as never before.

Why God Cannot Change

Most of us are familiar with the scriptures which inform us that God is unchanging.  Moroni goes so far as to explain that, if He changed, "God would cease to be God" (Mormon, 9:19).  But why?

A common explanation, and one that I myself have likely propagated, is that there is a Divine Order, and that He must necessarily follow that order strictly and never deviate so as to maintain His divinity.  Thus change is not allowable, for it would imply a departure from that strict adhesion to the proper order.  Alternatively, it might be supposed that He never changes for us, that constancy is strictly necessary for us to have faith in Him.  How can we put our full trust and reliance in one who is prone to change His mind?  

But change doesn't necessarily imply going back on one's word, or breaking any sort of rules.  Change can simply be different or novel.  Perhaps it might be explained by the fact that He need not change.  As a perfected being, would not any change be imperfection?  But, again, I don't think so.  Individual differences are not imperfections.  I don't believe at all that, once perfected, we will all be characteristically identical. I don't know about you, but my personality has changed over the years, which is not necessarily for better or worse.  Clearly, mortality is meant for development and change, but why would God cease to be God if he became a little more playful (what if His tender mercies became more like pranks every now and then?)?  Certain verses in the Old Testament certainly allude to the idea that God is not always constant (e.g. Jonah 3:10; Amos 7). 

Here's what I think.  God cannot change because of time.  

Consider this little excerpt from former economist Ludwig von Mises' classic, Human Action:

"The notion of change implies the notion of temporal sequence.  A rigid, eternally immutable universe would be out of time....  The concepts of change and of time are inseparably linked together."

Consider, we believe that, for God, all time is before Him.  He is out of time, rather than within time.  He experiences time as an observer, and not as a player.  

What does this mean for change?  Change, as Mises explains, is inextricably tied to the passage of time.  Change means that at one point in time it was this way, and at another point in time it was different. If there is no time, there cannot be change!  Where there is no time, time-based language such as always, never, old, new, different, etc. become meaningless.  It just is.  

Thus for God to change He would have to come into time, and thereby sacrifice the necessarily divine privilege of having all time before Him. 

Freedom, Morality, and Causation

At our recent family reunion my family and I discussed the correlation between liberty and morality.  As my dad pointed out, John Adams famously argued that “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Similarly, Benjamin Franklin is attributed the following: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  Madison once wrote that “[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary.” 

Certainly, the founders’ words were founded in sagacity, but I questioned the causal link between freedom and morality.  In other words, while Adams and Franklin suggest that morality permits liberty, I proposed that it was actually the other way around.  Liberty promotes morality. 

That morality permits liberty certainly fits a common sense narrative.  As Franklin says, an immoral people need more laws to protect each other from their immorality.  So as nations become immoral, it stands to reason that, for survivability, they would forfeit their freedoms to protect the peace and promote civility.  But as individuals are increasingly moral, they govern themselves, such that “no government would be necessary.” 

History, however, paints a story of reverse causality, that freedom begets morality, and that socialism begets immorality.  American values took a sharp turn for the worse around the time of the Great Depression.  Traditional values of hard work, close-knit family ties, religious faith, and general integrity began to slowly erode.  Beginning with that time, each subsequent decade takes a step away from traditional moral values and toward the glorification of immorality.  Today, promiscuity, dishonesty, and laziness are not only condoned but largely promoted by society.  We are taught not only to look with tolerance on others who behave indecently, but to condone their behavior.

Why the decline?  Arguably, it’s because of our political turn toward socialism.  In the 30’s, and in response to the ongoing depression, FDR implemented the New Deal, a socialist program that forever turned America away from the freedom it once held sacred.  A wildly progressive income tax (which reached up to 92% at the top levels), social security, Medicare and Medicaid, price controls, regulations, and other government involvements in the economy were pushed on the population to try to stem the low economic performance.  Of course, the effect was only to prolong the depression an estimated 8 years.  But with this policy change, the socialism which we watched corrupt the nations of Russia, China, Cuba, and others slowly took root in our own society. 

You might argue that moral conditions took a turn for the worse before these policies gained favor, and that it was the moral decline which allowed them to take root.  But a recent study supports my story of causation.  Participants from both West and East Germany, who arguably should have the same moral background up until the establishment of the separate nations, were set to play a game for some reward in which it was notably easy to cheat in.  Those who lived in East Germany were twice as willing to cheat as those who grew up in West Germany.  The conclusion the authors made is that it was the communist system which promote unethical values in their citizens.

But why does socialism promote immorality?  To answer this we can turn to Friedrich Hayek.  When people are free, the process of survival becomes an evolutionary one.  So -called natural selection (although Hayek doesn’t like to use this term because it refers to biological evolution, which he argues was derived from social evolution theory) pits the different social values against each other in a market of ideas.  Those cultural and social values which produce positive social and economic results outperform those which promote social decline.  Observant societies will turn toward the more successful values.  Those societies which stubbornly persist in their failing policies will eventually die off naturally because it cannot support their lifestyles.  In the end, the best social values emerge as popular and the poorest become despised.  Of course, evolutionary history suggests that traditional moral values are the highest performing, which is why they became (and remained) the traditional values of society.  Freedom, then, begets morality.

On the other hand, when governments seek control over its population, that power is eventually corrupted and turned toward exploitation.  Even those rulers with the best of intentions eventually give way to power-driven narcissists who drive society into corruption.  History is full of such examples.  Hayek argued that it is natural in systems with centralized power for the scum to rise to the top, for those who should be leaders are those who do not want or seek the responsibility.  What’s more, even in those cases where a good ruler emerges, centrally directed morality cannot succeed as intended, as I have argued in earlier posts. 

In sum, it is not morality which begets freedom, but freedom which begets morality.  If we, as Christians, seek to better the world, to turn our fellow man toward Christ and moral values, we should first seek to free ourselves from socialist policies and its corruption.  Until we are more free, we have little chance of driving our society closer to morality.  Fight for freedom, and morality will naturally result.

On Bakers and Gays

The recent controversy, among many other examples, of a Christian baker who refuses to bake the wedding cake of a homosexual couple has sparked some interesting, and passionate, debate even among generally like-minded people.  Arizona's law, of which I am not especially familiar, is more broadly irrelevant to the inherent and underlying issue at hand.  Who's in the right and the wrong?

Truly it is an intriguing question.  On the one hand, the Christians believe, for one, that homosexuality is immoral, and would rather not condone the sin.  But the real issue is that marriage, a God-created institution, is sacred to them, and it mocks God's law to have such a rite used to unite a sinful union.  That it is offensive to those should not be surprising, nor debased as heartless or cruel.  It is simply the defilement of something they hold especially sacred. 

On the other hand, gays certainly do not hold the same beliefs as those strict Christians.  It is in their rights to believe what they may, and to pursue the paths which they believe makes them happy just as the Christians do.  Certainly they wish to be accepted as others are.  But they do not require acceptance, just that they get what they pay for the same as everyone else.  If they want a cake, what is it to the baker who it's for?  He/she's getting paid for a service, not for the moral acceptance of the customers' beliefs.

But we're asking the wrong question now, aren't we?  It doesn't matter who's right or wrong.  They're both right in their own minds.  We can't say one is right and the other wrong, for reality is subjective.  The world is subjectively created.  Of course, if you believe in objective truth (e.g. God), then there exists a right and a wrong.  But who's "objective truth" is really true?  We live on faith, no matter which religion or belief system we subscribe to.  And everyone has a right to that (see Article of Faith 11).

So if we can't say either one is right, what do we do?  What's in the best interest of society?  It doesn't matter what is morally right here because morality is in the eye of the beholder. 

The answer is to maximize individual freedom.  This is right for a few reasons.  First economists have shown repeatedly (both historically and in modern empirical study) that free markets produce the greatest economic benefit.  But so what?  Money isn't everything.  Well, it's actually a bigger deal than we generally give credit for.  Wealth is a representation of how many human needs/wants we have satisfied.  The wealthy are so because they have satisfied many people's needs, thus creating value for them and receiving monetary value in return.  A wealthy nation is relatively "wealthy" because it can satisfy more of its people's needs than a poor country.

Second, by maximizing personal and individual freedom, individuals are able to pursue their own ends, and satisfy them as best as they can.  This is important because we are all different.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution to people's needs.  We need and want different things.  To maximize societal value and happiness, then, we must each pursue our own ends.  We certainly know what we want better than anyone else.

Third, if there is variation in individual freedom, there must be tyranny and slavery.  If one has any more freedom than another, the other is forced in some form to work for the one who is free, who has power.  Morally it is obvious why slavery is wrong.  But what about requiring a doctor to see patients who are sick but can't pay?  Is he not a slave too?  What of the rich executive that pays half her salary to the government.  Isn't she a slave for half the year?  You say no, she's getting something in return.  But is she fairly getting what she's paying for?

So in this scenario, how do we maximize individual freedom?  The baker, who is free, may choose to serve whomever he chooses.  This is right.  "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"  "No soup for you!  Come back one year!"  If we force him to serve someone against his will, he becomes a slave.  Morally it is no different. 

But what of the customers?  Isn't the baker denying their freedom to buy a cake?  That's a silly argument.  Is the Ferrari dealership denying me my right to buy a car?  Is the baker denying me a right to buy a car?  People provide what they will to whom they will.  That's the way it is.  If the baker can't or won't build me a Ferrari at a price I can afford for whatever reason, I can't buy a Ferrari from him.

I've heard it argued that there is a distinction between personal and professional life, that you should be required to serve all without discrimination in professional life even if you don't agree with them personally.  We need to route out this type of thinking, as it is wrong and very dangerous.  As Nobel winning economist Fredrich Hayek explains, there isn't a distinction between economic and personal life.  It's all personal life.  We work for our personal purposes just as we consume for personal purposes.  "It is very questionable whether there are any actions which can be called merely "economic" and whether any restrictions on liberty can be confined to what are called "economic" aspects.  Economic considerations are merely those by which we reconcile and adjust our different purposes, none of which, in the last resort, or economic (except those of the miser or the man for whom making money has become an end in itself)."

The refusal of the baker to provide this couple's cake infringes on no one's rights.  The couple simply must give their business to another baker.  If no baker is willing to do the service (this, of course, is purely hypothetical), then some enterprising entrepreneur will be able to create value in starting a bakery to meet that unmet need.  That is how the economy, and the world, works.  There are infinite unmet needs in the world.  That we simply want them does not make it our right to have them.  We must provide them or have them provided for us in exchange for something else.  We have no right to force a trade, it must be voluntary. 

This analysis is intentionally amoral.  I take no moral stance on individuals' sexual preferences.  I believe homosexuality to be a sin, but that has no bearing on this analysis.  This is simply right.  Freedom is right.

Legislating Morality

A recent debate with my father has caused me to more deeply and introspectively consider my stance on freedom and the role of government in creating a moral society.  My conclusions remain the same, but I hope to be more articulate in explaining why.

I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence, that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Jefferson, of course, was of a more libertarian mind than the typical American today.  Yet the question remains, do we believe Jefferson’s claim today?  Do we believe that we are given by God the right to life, to liberty, and to pursue our own happiness as we best see fit? 

If these rights are, as Jefferson claimed, unalienable and God-given, then what right do we, or anyone, have to take them away against their will?  Indeed, if freedom is a gift from God, than to deprive another of that gift would appear to defy God’s will.  If we are to be advocates of freedom, we must accept that some will choose things that we don’t agree with.  If we cannot, then we cannot be free.

Certainly it is argued, sometimes powerfully, that our nation was founded on principles of morality, and that our nation’s structure could only function in a moral society.  Notably, it was John Adams who made this claim, a political opponent of Jefferson’s.  Jefferson would have likely rejected such a claim, but why?  It certainly coincides with Benjamin Franklin’s assertion that the more evil we become, the more we stand in need of masters to watch over us. 

But consider the causal relationship between government power and moral decay.  Which came first?  It is my adamant contention that government power and corruption precedes the moral decay of society.  Indeed it seems the disposition of government power to facilitate such moral corruption.  Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and other socialist and communist nations have directly and intentionally banned and burned religious and moral texts for the express reason that moral people prefer to be free.  We see America's decline into immorality begin as the Progressive movement takes hold and begins to take away our freedoms.  In other words, centralized power causes moral decay, not the other way around. 

But what of these immoralities that are plaguing our communities now?  What are we to do about them?  The answer is simple.  We fight against them.  We teach of their dangers.  We lead by example.  We raise our children to understand right and wrong.  I came across a story in which a spontaneous internet community emerged to help youth break free from porn addictions.  The scientific evidence given, moral support offered, and personal experiences shared have allowed this (non-religious) community to find morality on its own.  The story noted that the growth of this community (on reddit.com I believe) has been astronomical.  This is how we make society moral again.

Can government be the answer?  No.  Laws do not change a person’s moral stance.  They simply change otherwise law-abiding citizens who have differing moral opinions into criminals.  Might they stop their immoral behavior if we ban it?  Maybe, if they fear the risks and consequences of being caught greater than the benefit they expect from that behavior that they previously pursued.  But it creates resentment, animosity, and distrust among those citizens who share a community.  And it creates dark and dangerous outlets for those who regard their sinful pleasures worth the risk.

Let me illustrate with an example.  Suppose some crazy leftist biologist has determined that chocolate is bad for you, and has convinced congress to pass a law banning chocolate consumption.  Now, it is obvious that this scientist’s study is junk science, and that the law is beyond stupid.  But let me ask you, will you stop eating chocolate?  Many of you might answer yes, as we try to abide by the laws of the land.  But how will you feel about it?  How will you feel toward the supporters of the law?  Let me ask you further, what if a friend of yours stops by after taking a vacation abroad, and happens to have snuck in some premium foreign chocolate and offers you some.  Would you resist?  Obviously, as we know that chocolate is not evil, and the law is stupid, I suspect that many of us would be more than happy to indulge, especially as it’s probably been a while since we’ve tasted it.  In other words, the lawmakers have turned us chocolate lovers into criminals at heart, whether we act on our desires or not, because we disagree with the law and want to break it.  Furthermore, we become quite irritated with those who have limited your freedom thus, removing from your life one of your most prized pleasures.  They have inhibited your freedom and ability to pursue happiness as you see fit, and have thus made you disgruntled and angry instead.

Interestingly, both sides of the political debate (excepting the libertarian stance) are quite adamant about the importance of legislating morality, but takes extreme umbrage when the other side seeks to do the same.  For example, liberals are incensed when conservatives push their Christian morality on them, such as the ban on drugs, no gay marriage, or a ban on abortion.  Conservatives, on the other hand, find liberal legislation of taxing the rich to feed the poor, regulating businesses, universal health care, and saving the planet from ourselves to be repugnant.  Indeed each side is passionate about their causes, and thus there are incessant debates both in congress and in public discourse over the right morals to legislate.  In the end, each side fights for the power to enact their morality on the other side against their will.

But the question remains: if we could enact laws to legislate a morality which returns to the principles we once held, wouldn’t that work?  Wouldn’t that speed the transition back to the society we wish to live in?  No, not really.  Unless you have localized legislation only, and have destroyed and distributed the federal power among the smaller localities such that they can choose how to live and where, unless this is how such morality is legally enacted, forcing such a morality on those who do not wish it (even if it’s good morality) will still create discontent and resentment, and will necessarily lead to crime and corruption.  People will only endure moral enslavery to a limited extent.  I suspect if such legislation made it through the federal system, the nation would very quickly erupt into violence and civil war.

Economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek offers a compelling explanation of why freedom can and does create a moral society.  In a free society, best practices emerge naturally in a sort of natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest) which weeds out those practices which do not work.  The history of mankind has shown this to be a moral and religious society which has endured the test of time.  Hayek gave strict warning of casually throwing out the moral codes which have endured time (as they have survived for a reason), which society began doing at the turn of the 20^th century as “science” began to suggest supposed better moral codes.  Enacting policies based on such science (e.g. abortion, social security, income taxation) have eroded and displaced the moral society which made America strong, and replaced it with a dichotomous nation of two general moralities.

We must trust in freedom and have faith in mankind if we are to become moral again.  I know it’s tempting to want to have government codify those principles which you know to be right and true so that you can live in a society that behaves as you think it should.  But you must resist that urge.  Freedom works!  Those immoral societies which emerge from granting such freedom will soon be displaced as they fail.  But most people are reasonably intelligent (when they have to be), and will, if free, quickly adapt to that freedom by learning and adopting those moral practices which truly work.  It shouldn’t take long, as many of us already know and will live by those principles that work, for certain moral principles to emerge as most effective.

God meant us to be free.  That’s why Satan was rejected, and we have a Savior.