Saving Persuasion and...Legos?

In the beginning of the chapter of Saving Persuasion entitled "Conviction and Controversy: Cicero," Garsten compared and contrasted Cicero's and the sophists' approach to rhetoric and politics.  Both parties prided themselves in arguing both sides of a topic, but the sophists used this ability to claim that there is no truth or no foundation to what we believe is right.  According to this, we all just came to a general consensus on what was right and what was wrong.  Cicero, on the other hand, believed that there was a foundation to what we believe to be right and wrong, "Justice springs up from Nature" (145).  This argument to me is like arguing whether or not there is a "ground" piece in lego world--or perhaps if there should be a "ground" piece.

In the image above, you see a soccer game (probably World Cup game) depicted through legos.  The little plastic players are situated and posed on a green lego piece that symbolizes a soccer field.  As it is now, the sophists can argue what the right way to play the game is because they have made are agreed upon lines on the "ground" piece.  If you removed the ground (and for the sake of this example, there is nothing but nebulous space underneath) then there could be no game.  The ability to negotiate our perception of what is just depends on the ability to stand and draw lines on the "ground" piece.

This ground piece to me (as my philosophical, religious beliefs are Christian based) then is the laws of nature that God set down when he created the Earth.  From the beginning, he made it so murder, adultery, theft, etc were wrong just as he created the chemical makeup of water to forever be consisting of two Hydrogen molecules and one Oxygen molecule.  The lines we then draw on this foundation say stuff like "okay. So it's wrong to murder, but what if someone breaks in my home and tries to kill me and my family, can I kill them in self defense?"  According to the ruling of our courts, we the people have come to the consensus that yes it is just to kill the invader in self defense.  Is this ruling in accordance with the Bible's teachings?  As far as I know, no, but we are imperfect people living in an imperfect world, and sometimes it is the imperfect thing that allows us to survive.  If we did not have this rule in place, the murder-rate would probably increase as people would lean more toward an eye-for-an-eye philosophy.

Garsten continues to explain,"Cicero thought that the belief in natural law was necessary both to ground one's commitment to republican institutions and to motivate one's interest in the controversies that took place within them" (145).


______________________________________________________________________________
...And now I remember we didn't need a Saving Persuasion post.... *facepalm*