Love Implementing the Demands

of Justice
Two theories exist that we, as a society, can choose to become the legal
and philosophical basis for our society: natural law or the will to power.

These are the only two choices that exist for us.

I‟ve intentionally set forth the natural law basis of the Declaration of
Independence and the civil rights movement of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. as exemplars of America‟s natural law foundation. And I‟ve done
so for two reasons: 1) because most people are simply unaware of the
natural law basis of both the Declaration of Independence and Dr. King‟s
civil rights movement; and 2) because anyone who chooses to reject either
the Declaration of Independence or Dr. King‟s civil rights movement is
simply committing social, political, and intellectual suicide (think Rand
Paul here).
 The ancient philosopher Socrates was unpopular with many people for
one reason: he took people‟s philosophical positions to their logical (and
often absurd) conclusions, which most people simply didn‟t enjoy facing.
In his dialogue with Gorgias (recounted for us by Plato), Socrates took
Gorgias‟ theory of justice to its logical and absurd conclusion: that might
makes right. Against Gorgias, Socrates believed that justice transcended
humankind, because it was eternal and divine.

In short, these two ancient understandings of justice are the same two
theories of justice that we, today, have to build our society upon: natural
law (i.e., justice is eternal and divine) and the will to power (i.e., might
makes right).

As I‟ve pointed out elsewhere America was founded upon natural law
because it was thought to be the surest foundation upon which to build a
society. Might makes right and the will to power might be interesting
(Sophistic) philosophical positions to debate, but these understandings of
justice—as something that is personally interpreted and power-based—
simply do not work in a society that is attempting to build a just and
harmonious society. In fact, they are contrary to it.

I‟ve also pointed out (elsewhere) the logical and absurd conclusions of
the will to power as demonstrated by the tawdry “philosophy” of Michel
Foucault, based as it was upon Frederick Nietzsche‟s “enlightened”
concept of the transcendence of such “weak-minded” categories as “good”
and “evil” and its concomitant will to power “ethic”.

The will to power theory of “justice” leads, inexorably, to the

domination of the weak by the strong, the oppression of the weak by the
strong, and the Sadistic sexual torture of the weak by the strong (simply
for the evil enjoyment of the strong).

Sound like anyone (or any nation) you know?

Concerning the dramatic contrast between the ethical theories of Dr.

King and Frederick Nietzsche, the late Boston University professor Roger
Shattuck has said,

“A succinct and unflinching answer to Nietzsche arose out of Martin

Luther King, Jr.‟s resolve to protect the civil rights struggle from the forces
of radical black violence. In „Where Do We Go from Here?‟—his 1967
Presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—
King picks out as one of the great errors in history the interpretation of
power and love as polar opposites and the association of power with
violence. King cut to the core of the matter with a no-nonsense
simplification:

‘It was this misinterpretation that caused Nietzsche, who was a

philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It
was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to
reject Nietzschean philosophy of the will to power in the name of the
Christian idea of love. Now, we’ve got to get this thing right. What is
needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive,
and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is
love implementing the demands of justice.’ (A Testament of Hope, p. 247)

King was not just playing games with the words love and power. He was
reaching back to a series of his own earlier readings (above all, in Paul
Tillich) and writings and to his experience as intellectual and tactical
leader of the civil rights movement. „To get this thing right‟ meant to King
an appeal to a long-mediated and carefully defined philosophic position:
the philosophy of non-violence . . . These two prophets, Nietzsche and
King, confront us with a continuing struggle between power and justice
that no thinking person can responsibly turn away from” (Roger Shattuck,
Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography; p. 303).

No thinking American citizen can responsibly turn away from our civic
and moral obligation—our duty—to put our nation upon a proper course
of justice.

Considering the current situation, in which anyone who dissents,

politically, against the militaristic power-state that America has now
become, since 9/11, there is little hope that any non-violent revolution of
love—by means of protests involving both active and passive resistance—
would be successful. Most Americans seem not to care, or worse: seem to
actually support the militaristic power-state that America has now
become. Protesters are easily discouraged by the government‟s ability to
declare arbitrary free speech zones as well as its ability to fine and
imprison dissenters, virtually at will. The individual protester must decide
whether it‟s worth losing everything simply to take a stand for love and for
what‟s right.