This contains an examination of the importance of the Highest Good for the unification of an otherwise divided rationality. By means of it the moral law is finally coupled with happiness in a morally uplifting and necessary way. An analysis of the thinking of a conflicted married man serves as a proxy for the role of happiness in the moral scheme of things. A conclusion is drawn as to the necessity (practically speaking) of eternal life and God as a means to the attaining of the perfect virtue and commensurate happiness called for by the Highest Good as a practical goal.

The author then examines what reason would prescribe for the human race in terms of a religion to reflect this eternal life and God. The human condition is deplorable and people very naturally fall into the sin of an "occasional" violation of the moral law, e.g., a white lie. Since it is a natural use of his reason that the human makes choice of sin, it follows that the human can change and put the moral law first above all claims for happiness. An incentive must be provided by the religion of reason to be willing to make this change, and that is known as the "second chance." And then a fellowship with kindred spirits is called for in order for there to be any expectation of a successful second chance, due to the natural evil that was seen in the human in being willing to occasionally violate the moral law along with the morally adverse propensity of the world to promote such a maxim of prudence above the moral law. This fellowship must be a church in order to be unchangeable. And to the extent that neither creed nor law is required for participation that church can claim to be a Universal Church, and thus theoretically a church encompassing all people.

The essay closes with a speculation that the American Episcopalian Church is the first church in modern times that can lay claim to being a Universal Church.

Let’s consider a married man who holds his vows as sacred as he does the moral law, i.e., with great respect. Sexually, while his wife is totally satisfied, he is not, for he has need of a lover and not just a lover, but a different kind of lover. Now he has the opportunity of fulfilling this different love but is troubled by his vow of sexual faithfulness, troubled and restrained.

The vow is considered here to serve to ensure a mutual, reciprocal happiness for the man and the wife. The wife is totally happy, but not the man. Nevertheless the happiness of the wife is so necessary for the happiness of the man that he feels the vow is worthwhile for that sake, if for nothing else, and settles on less than compete happiness, but it is the more important happiness, for it is the happiness of his wife. They both made the vow and the wife and the man both are made happy by the vow and the man respects that happiness and that vow above a more complete happiness.

Now let’s change the situation a bit and have the husband and wife hating each other and wanting to live apart from each other in divorce. Now the purpose of the vow comes into question for the first time, for now no one’s happiness depends upon or arises as a result from the vow, and in fact it restricts the happiness of the husband without aiding the happiness of the wife. In this case an allegiance to the vow would seem insane and idiotic . . . pointless.

The conclusion: there must be a result to the vow (to be and remain meaningful) and that result must be some happiness. An categorical imperative which is independent of any result of happiness is absurd and cannot be adhered to by a rational man.* The vow is necessarily directed toward a pursuit of happiness and without that potential happiness it is null and void and worthless and meaningless.

[* This is not very easy to grasp. Imagine a categorical imperative which called for a sacrifice without a compensatory happiness. For example, suppose you established as an absolute law to be obeyed you without question that on Wednesdays at 10 PM you were to face the North Star until counting to 34 and then burn up a dollar bill. Suppose this were not commanded as some divine means of getting a reward, and not even for the sake of some therapy of doing something inane in order to find a release from some subconscious resentment, but merely for the sheer sake of having an absolute law with an absolute obedience along with a loss of happiness (the money), no matter what? That would be pointless. And even so the vow without a resulting happiness would be pointless.]

A Happy End as Result. The vow in the case above has served as a proxy for the moral law. We continue with a look at the Highest Good per se.

Now we have the moral (uplifting message) of the Highest Good. “There is a happy end to your moral trials . . . and don’t forget it!”

“Just do the right thing, and don’t think any more about it. You’ll be glad you did. Someday you will be glad you did.”

That’s the message of the Highest Good, obey anyway. But you will be glad you did, you will be glad that you remained true to the moral law.

Conclusion: and so we have

The Moral: “Just do the right thing and don’t think any more about it.”

and then

The Happiness: “You’ll be glad you did. Someday you will be glad that you did.”

Together then we have the Highest Good. And it most certainly serves for the strengthening of moral fervor. For without it the moral law tends to become pointless (to our pursuit of happiness). With the Highest Good there is no longer an overriding concern about the costs of the moral trials. And the rationality of the individual human is unified in the Highest Good where the driver called prudence is united with the driver called the moral law in that the driver called the moral law is made the condition for the driver called prudence and happiness; and indeed in this wise: there is a Happy End to all moral striving.

[* The clear teaching of science is that all our actions are products of earlier events and there is no freedom. Couple this then with the notion that our acceptance of the moral law is also a result of earlier events. And even though this moral law is commanded by our very rationality itself, if it is pointless, i.e., if nothing occurs from an event of nature, and this event is costly and telling and imposing, and if one can affect this event, he can preserve more happiness for now. And so there is an incentive for the human to disregard the moral law, when it becomes pointless.]

In brief. There is no purpose which is proposed for the moral law, for the moral law stands firmly on its own feet as its own purpose and adequate drive of human actions. And no result is even necessary for this majesty. There is nevertheless a disconnect in our rationality, in a continuing struggle with the counsel or driven of prudence for the sake of happiness. The only possible unification of these two diverse drivers (one moral, the other prudent) is through the Highest Good where the moral perfection is an achievable goal (through continuing approximation) and where happiness will be the result. Without the Highest Good the moral law still commands as always, but will then have become pointless and vain, indeed a veritable vanity of man, and a costly vanity in terms of limited happiness missed.

Eternal Life. The Highest Good is then a rationally necessary goal for all moral striving. It assumes the attaining of moral perfection, where each moral act points as evidence. The fact that this moral perfection cannot be attained in any finite span of time means only that the human must have a longer life in order to further that approximation and approach.* Otherwise the Highest Good cannot be a practical goal . . . but it is a practical goal! for we are constantly called to act as the morally perfect, and so the Highest Good has to be possible in a practical way (for what we are called to do, we can do), and so utter virtue is practical and thus to be expected as an eventual result of the moral striving.

[* I may have mentioned this below, but here I am reminded of the testimony and witness of the Wesleyan Christian: while I am far from perfection, I'm not as far as I was; and I am on the way.']

God. And likewise the Highest Good as a practical goal calls for the intervention of a God as the Omnipotent and All Knowing Moral Judge who dispenses happiness in proportion to one’s virtue. And so where the perfect virtue aimed at by the individual in his pursuit of the Highest Good (through every moral act) is realized (for this moral rectification cannot arise by the workings of laws of nature).*

[* Since there is no proof in pure reason against either Eternal Life or God (or also Freedom for that matter), and since both are required by the Highest Good in order to provide a meaning result to the moral law, it follows that both must be assumed as postulates of pure practical reason. Give a citation from the Critique of Pure Reason.**]

[** I mention again that it is hard for people to realize that if the moral act were utterly pointless and merely undertaken by rote in accordance with a rule they have admittedly just dreamed up, that you would be insane to continue doing that pointless act. If you were consistent in your thinking you would at least go to a doctor to get some medication for the bad feelings arising as you consider committing immoral but profitable acts. Without the idea of the Highest Good as the unifier of practical reason the moral law itself is in danger, as something to be got rid of. Consider: I learn to keep my hands free of frost bite and so my rule is always to wear gloves when it gets below whatever, and then, when my left hand is chopped off for some religious reason, let us say, and is lying on the ground by itself and it is below the specified degrees, I would go and insert the lifeless left hand into its glove. That would be pointless. Without the unification of practical rationality under the Highest Good the moral law is just as pointless.
And it is insane to knowingly engage in pointless acts. (I think the DaDa movement may have been aimed at violating this rational principle: no pointless acts.)]

Now then, what does this portend for us as humans, this notion of the Highest Good and more especially the necessary presuppositions of eternal life and God? We need first to examine the moral state of the human.

Bent to Sin. The human makes an automatic first choice in the use of his freedom in that from the very beginning he chooses to violate the moral law on occasion. The moral law depends upon nothing, for it is given as a categorical imperative, and so there are no strings attached, no rewards and punishments, and so no costs to violations (except a bad conscience). The human automatically and freely chooses to violate the moral law on occasion, e.g., tell a harmless lie.*

[* See clipping concerning a contrast of an ethical counselor in the newspaper to Immanuel Kant. It points out the extreme degree of a willingness to violate the moral law on occasion, e.g., by calling it a “white lie." Back button must be used to return here.]

Now in addition to this there is also a rather worthless propensity on the part of the human race as a society people to expect and to condone such a wicked bent in humans by measuring the moral value of an action by the effect rendered by the action and not inquiring as to the general principle of acting (a maxim) which caused the action upon a perceived opportunity, and which constitutes what we can call the state of the heart, e.g., selfish or communal, hateful or loving.

The proof that this bent is freely applied is the fact that the human knows at any moment of time that he can choose otherwise and dedicate his existence to the moral law first, and then to all prudence and happiness. And so obviously it is a choice (even if beyond all memory), and based on wide experience it must simply be assumed to be the universal first choice of the human, even the best,* the disrepect of the moral law, the admission of the white lie (and so it really seems to be).

[* Those who would accept this but then also believe that Jesus never sinned, would have to hypothesize something like this: Jesus considered an immoral act, and he realized upon the very consideration that this meant that he was willing to then do the immoral act, for otherwise he would not considered it. As a result he made an immediate dedication of himself to the moral law and never faltered or sinner. And he also saw in that experience man's downfall, a willingness to break the moral law on occasion.]

And this is the ultimate good news concerning this otherwise sad and deplorable condition of the human. For even though the bad news seems to be that it is all his own doing, and that's true, that also prompts the good news, for since it is all his own doing we can change our own doing at this very instant and start living the worthy life, the virtuous life, the truly good life. Nature does not hold us back from this change and make it impossible.

Redemption. But what good is all that change, it might be asked by any person? What good is that truly good life if I cannot attain to that necessary happiness that is connected with virtue, for I have already lived a sinful life and already deserve death and not life? In order to waylaid these fears and apprehensions it is necessary to formulate a doctrine of “second chance.”

Jesus does this in the religion that he established during his life time. He called all to heed and imitate him and become righteous in all aspects of their existence. He assembled together to himself those who answered that call. He told them that they had been given a second chance by God and that their sins were forgiven and would not be held against them from this moment on. They could rest assured in his word that they were totally forgiven and had eternal life with him, for where he would be (with God) even so would they also be. This belonged to them because they belonged to him in spirit and so where all things were shared, including therefore not only the struggle and death, but also their glory that was yet to come.

Other modes of presentation (other faith stories) could be utilized, but since Jesus happened to be first to proclaim the moral religion it is referred to formally as the Christian Religion. Theoretically Islam might also be efficacious in this regard except that Islam does not promise salvation, but only a strong maybe. With Islam there is a sort of desperation that goes like this: "I am doomed to hell because of what I did or left undone earlier. The most I can hope for is this, that if I start doing everything right now that God will forgive me, at least to some extent, and give me even at least a simple paradise." This is a hope because the Islamic God is declared to be oft forgiving and beneficent. But there is never any assurance* and thus no peace. And the promise of the Moral Religion, called Christian, is a peace that comes from a possession of eternal life such that no future works are undertaken for the sake of reward, but solely in order to extend the reach of that Religion. Thus, for example, the Wesleyan Christian is wont to say: I already have eternal life through Christ, and so all the good I now do I do in and through him and for his sake and no longer for my own. I get nothing for these good works, for I have the reward already, i.e., the transformed heart and eternal communion with Christ. These deeds are merely its fruits, the gift of Christ.

[* There is one exception, the one who dies for the sake of the faith. That person gains immediate access to paradise now, while other others must sleep in the grave until the last day and then face their judgment. The Christians believe that their martyrs go to heaven, but that's because they assume that all Christians are going to heaven, for that is the teaching of that faith. And so I hope, I hope, and not: I know. Conceptually the Christians and Muslims are fixed in assurance and merely hope, respectively.]

As far as an atonement is concerned we would have to view it like this (being in the rational mode). This man Jesus intends to live every degree of human existence from doubt to death. He does this voluntarily and passively (letting events take their course) in order then to be able to say to the worst of sinners (personified by Barabbas): if you join me you will be glad you did and to prove it I shall undertake for you my own denial of faith and by my own death in order to experience all that you experience and understand and fear. And so here Jesus is seen as dying more with his disciples than for them, for he has already pronounced them clean in heart. And so he goes with them all the way to the grave via the loss of faith and says: I am one with you, for you are in me (in your second chance with me) and I am in you, and where I go you shall go also, and I shall lead you through the Paths of Death and will go first, and you are not to fear. For what you must do I also will do. I will be with you in denial and in death. I will be with in all things.* In Romans 8 Jesus is referred to as the eldest of many brethren. He is the pathfinder and the waygoer in solidarity with all who follow him, regardless of how low and unworthy.

[* In this wise also we can imagine God being pleased at what had happen (upon the death of this Man of Righteousness), for perhaps it is possible that if people are willing to seize upon this second chance God will aid them, and perhaps that is what God has been wanting to do for so many millennia, people willing to believe that they indeed really and truly did have a second chance, and this was the gift and grace of God and it is exemplified and manifested in the death of Jesus as just another one of those humans.**]

[** The Christian faiths add to this understanding the promise of success in the second chance, for it is by the story of the resurrection that the promise and assurance of success is revealed secretly to his friends (according to their sacred histories).]

Expectations. Now we assume that Jesus or someone (and it conceivably could be simply pure reason) convinces a sinner to turn from sin and to take the second chance and live a life worthy of that grace. What expectation is there that this sinner will be true to his second chance?

On his own there is very little hope, and that is due to the above mentioned, wicked, implicit and natural conspiracy among all humans to expect and to excuse occasional violations of the moral law, and settle for effects instead of motives. Since that is the way of the world, it draws all people to itself, like an evil Ring of Tolkien, and makes them subservient together to the ways of the world, even when they are individually good people. And so no, there is very little hope of an individual being able to withstand the power of the prince of the world on his own. The only hope will be a union of himself with others for the express purpose of developing a love of the moral law,* the very ideal and sense of Moral Religion anyway.

[* An interesting experience today (7/22/06) on the development of a love of the moral law from a Wesleyan perspective. I was saddened by the circumstances of a neighbor’s computer and realized that I might be able to give her my own older computer if things could be arranged that the company did not need it any more. And that notion gladden my heart, and then suddenly I realized that that was exactly the purpose of the moral law. I was not concerned at all for any value, but merely that it could be helpful to my neighbor. And there was a joy in this. The joy of the thought of the giving was more than the joy at the thought of the market value in pocket cash, so much so that the latter did not even arise until now upon this reflection. It was a spontaneous outburst. Now granted this deals with a relatively small amount of value, and does not mean that I have reached the point of great sacrifice. But this does point out the above cited Wesleyan adage: while I am far from perfect, I am not as far as once I was; and I am on the Way. And that in turn gives people new hope.]

This ends up having to be a church* where the moral law is also considered ipso facto to be the command of God and the sole means of pleasing him.** This then also becomes the guide for discerning among revelations. All acts which may be called for by a historical faith will have to be interpreted morally, e.g., as leading to moral strengthening and perfection. The scriptures have to be interpreted morally over the literal. The church must constantly be on guard against any attempt to require anything other than the love of the moral law as pleasing to God. Neither laws or sacred histories compete with a love of the moral law alone.

[* It has to be a church for technical reason. The constitution of the church, by virtue of the role of God, removes it from the hands of the members, and so the supremacy of the moral law is forever beyond question or debate. If it were merely an ethical society the supremacy of the moral law would depend upon the whim of the members and subject to change.]

[** God is supremely pleased with a love of the moral law as was exemplified in the recorded history/story of Christ. And so while a man of moral respect is pleasing to God on his own, a lover of the moral law is very close to God, for God, being holy, loves the moral law. You might say: both, respecter and lover, are welcome at the table of Jesus, but those who love the moral law (as opposed to merely respecting it) constantly touch the Lord himself, while the others only listen and eat and converse with Jesus. All are delighted, but some more than others, i.e., according to their capacity. As the Wesleyan hymn puts it: "Til we cast our crowns before him, lost in wonder, love and praise!"***]

[*** We might observe that Christians tend to assert that the vaunted "gift of the Holy Spirit" is a heart which loves the moral law, and that this is manifested to the Christians over a period of time and usually in a progressive way. If this is true, then of the two groups at the table of Jesus, the believers and the unbelievers in the sacred history, the former will have a love for the moral law while the latter will be welcomed with respect, the former being lovers of Jesus and the other respecters of Jesus.]

The Current Situation. Now as we survey the current scene it seems that the American Episcopalian Church alone (among majors) can lay claim to being a Universal Church, for there scriptures are not held as a law book, nor does the church proclaim law, and so neither statutes nor creeds* hold sway but rather merely the sincere intention alone of the congregates to participate in cultivating a lively love of the moral law (Jesus’ law of love), and that more than anything else. They recite the creeds as a body as a show of solidarity with all others, both today and in earlier times, and are not bound in conscience for having done so, for this is a ritual of cooperation like when the Methodist youth lustily and sincerely join together in singing, “We Are Marching To Pretoria!” They are using various words to sing together in harmony: we are becoming like the reports of Jesus speak of him as he always was, namely we are growing in a love of the moral law.**

[* Cite the New Yorker article on Bishop Robinson.]

[** This notion of progressive sanction on the part of the Wesleyan coupled with the universal congregation of the American Episcopalian Church could become a formidable force in the world. An open and inclusive congregation where there is emphasis on growth in a love of the moral law, i.e., that this is to be expected and is experienced.]