4.1.1

Lying, discriminating (in a sense), stealing and murdering have a built-in wrongness, and therefore it is merely tautological to assert that one should not lie, should not discriminate (in the sense of making an unjustified distinction), should not steal and should not murder. Without an accompanying doctrine which determines why and when a particular form of speaking is wrong or right, why and when a particular form of taking is wrong or right, why and when a particular form of killing is wrong or right, the old commandments thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder are analytical truths (provided that the emphasis is placed on lie, steal and murder and not on thou).

If only the wrong ways of not telling the truth are 'lying', then you must not lie (in the sense of you ought not to lie) is a truism and emphasizing it empty rhetoric, unless it is uttered in a particular context. (If said in a particular context it is to indicate that a particular utterance is considered a lie, that is, wrong.) You must not lie, or thou shalt not lie, presupposes and requires a theory of truth(fulness), and it is only worthwhile to teach and learn what the elements of such a theory are, and to live by the right interpretation of its substantive principles. It is senseless and naive, or hypocritical, to merely let people know that they ought not to tell a falsehood when it is wrong to tell a falsehood. When sacred books and prophets tell falsehoods and suggest that certain things are true which should not be held true because of a lack of empirical evidence or rational justification, they lie and they discredit truth itself. This equally applies to political documents and to the ideologues of political systems; and to all of us.

If every form of taking away were 'stealing', or if every form of using were 'abuse', it would be absurd to say that one must not steal or abuse. But if only the wrong ways of taking away are 'stealing', and only the wrong ways of using 'abuse', then you must not steal or abuse is also a truism, and emphasizing it --again-- empty rhetoric (unless it is uttered in a particular context). You must not steal or abuse , or thou shalt not steal, presuppose and require a theory of property, and it is only worthwhile --again-- to teach and learn what the elements of such a theory are, and to live by the substantive, moral standards of property. Here, too, it is senseless and naive, or hypocritical, to merely let people know that they ought not to take away or use something or somebody when it is wrong to take it or 'im away, or to use it or 'im. 'Property' in a normative sense is, then, not just what one is born to or what one has managed to acquire or subject, whatever religious or political ideologies may want people or the male heads of households to believe. (Even if every person is automatically the sole owner of 'er own body, and the 'theft' or abuse of other people's bodies therefore immoral, the proposition that this is so is also part of a theory of property.)

Similarly, if every form of killing is 'murder', this would entail absolute pacifism with regard to all life, personal or nonpersonal, human or nonhuman. But if only the wrong forms of killing are 'murder', then you must not murder is the third truism, and emphasizing it the third case of empty rhetoric (unless it is uttered in a particular context again). You must not murder, or thou shalt not murder, presupposes and requires a theory of life and death, or rather, a whole doctrine of ground-norms, and it is only worthwhile --again-- to teach and learn what the elements of such a doctrine are, and to live by the substantive standards of that doctrine. For the same reason it is here senseless too and naive, or hypocritical, to merely let people know that they ought not to kill a living being when it is wrong to kill it. Both the absolute pacifist who refuses to ever kill a tyrant who is bound to kill many more people, and the cruel tyrant 'imself who exclusively respects the lives of those who belong to 'er own religious or political faction agree that one should not murder. Yet, their agreement is purely emotive and devoid of any practical meaning.

Lies, thefts, assaults and murders were proscribed many centuries, if not millenniums, before the proscription of discrimination in the sense of making an unjustified distinction. (Some might contend that it was 'universal love' or some such thing which used to stand for the inclusiveness which characterizes the absence of all discrimination, but love is just a polysemous panacea which can be made to fill virtually any gap.) If every form of making a distinction were 'discrimination', it would be absurd to say that one must not discriminate. But also you must not discriminate (which has no historical religious equivalent) is a truism if discrimination means making an unjustified or wrong distinction. What you must not discriminate presupposes and requires is a theory of relevancy: it is the irrelevance of the distinction which makes it wrong and unjustified (even tho not all irrelevant distinctions are called "discriminatory" by everyone). Like in the case of truth, property and matters of life and death, it is only worthwhile to teach and learn what the elements of such a theory of relevancy are, and to live by the right interpretation of its substantive principles. Otherwise the distinctions one makes are due to be partial. And otherwise one's actions are exclusions or expressive of exclusiveness and a belief in exclusiveness.

The concept of relevancy which plays such a crucial role in questions of discrimination will be dealt with in the next chapter (chapter I.5). The concept of property which plays such a crucial role in questions of theft and abuse will be dealt with in the last chapter of this book (chapter I.9). Matters of life and nonlife which are governed by the ground-norms of the doctrine to be expounded in the Book of Fundamentals will be dealt with in the second-last chapter of that book (chapter F.5). Finally, the concept of truth, which plays such a crucial role in verbal communication, will be summarily dealt with in the present chapter. We shall return to the special discussion of this notion and value in several divisions of the Book of Fundamentals (notably Truth in a Social Perspective and Truth and Neutral-Inclusivity).