Brilliant minds have perched themselves in an ivory tower sifting through the various moral frame works, of the past centuries. These minds utilized a medley of different sources in search of an objective moral law for humankind. Sadly, none have succeeded, and some minds are still caught in meta-ethics twisting a web searching for the boarders of moral reasoning. To save my fellow brethren from the never-ending toil I would like to suggest that a Moral Law is a fait accompli (a fact on the ground).

(Definitions) A moral law is a measurement of what is good and what is evil. A fait accompli is a political term that is an established fact. An example of a fait accompli would be the Russian invasion of Crimea. Although, technically, Crimea was stolen and is still claimed by Ukraine the Russians have it. No, amount of rhetoric, or sanctions will not change the fact on the ground that Russian soldiers are guarding Crimea’s boarders. The fact on the ground is that people submit to Russian laws. The fact on the ground is that Russia is taking Crimea’s resources. This is the definition of a fait accompli. Now I will contend that a Moral Law is a fait accompli by observing the facts on the ground. There are three fact on the ground first people claim they have been wronged, second political systems are in place to punish behavior, and third people claim that these political systems are wrong.

(People claim they have been wronged) This one is self-explanatory and observed in human behavior. Ever since youth people claim “This man has stolen from me! I have been wronged!” This is a fact! No matter how hard you argue, you must wrestle with this fait accompli; people claimed wrongs have been committed. Obviously, I have no need for further explanation. People have a deep groaning, inside of them, that seek to rectify the wrongs done to them. These claims are so prevalent, in fact, that governments have put in systems to deal with conflicts amongst the people

(Political systems are in place to punish behavior) First, governments have manufactured limits upon civilians to deter undesirable behavior. Theses limits are called laws. Next governments have established institutions that enforce the laws. Law enforcement is the scaffolding of the police. Lastly, governments establish institutions that interpret whether a law has been broken. These are known as the courts. These three institutions are organized in many ways (depending upon the country). My favorite way that a government is organized is separated into 3 branches defending against corruption. However, the best way to organize these intuitions is still highly debated. I am in favor of a corruption less system, while others may value a speedy system. Arguments can be made for either system (and there are other ways to organize these institutions) but, as it stands, political systems exist to punish undesirable behavior. This transitions us to my final point, society’s disagreement about how the political system should be organized.

(People claim that these political systems are wrong) While some show there displeasure in others actions it would then, stand to reason, that society would be displeased with the governments execution of a political system. Simply, society disagrees with the current political systems. They say "I am being wronged by the political system. The very system designed to defend the moral law has become amoral" There is really no need to explain further.

(Conclusion) If these three facts exist than a Moral Law must exist. Philosophers can try to explain these 3 facts away with powerful rhetoric but the fact on the ground (fait accompli) is that people claim they have been wronged, political systems intend to punish behavior, and people claim that these political systems are amoral. Imagine a man with pain in his arm. A sensible doctor may seek the causes of the injured arm. An irrational doctor would try and convince his patient that the arm is uninjured. An outside observe would argue, to the doctor, that the injury is a fait accompli because the owner of the arm has claimed it hurts. In the same way philosophers cannot convince a physically abused woman that no wrong has been committed. Therefore, a Moral Law is a fait accompli (a fact on the ground). Therefore, (since a Moral Law is self evident) let us close the debate. Instead of arguing about a Moral Law let us try to discern what the absolute Moral Law is.

Regards,

The New Publius