True Principles

Most people have strong opinions on controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, war, education, healthcare, etc. Are these issues confined to the realm of subjective personal opinion, or could there be a tangible way to analyze these principles, and come to a factual conclusion?

Anyone familiar with mathematical formulas knows that in order to be true, they have to hold up no matter what variables are input. Take for example, the Pythagorean theorem. It holds that A squared, plus B squared, equals C squared. With A and B being 2 sides of a right triangle, and C being the third side, or hypotenuse. No matter how long or short sides A and B are, the equation still holds true.

I believe this is analogous to life. As in math, if a principle is true, it should always hold up, no matter the circumstances or variables. There are only 3 possible outcomes to an equation (or life principle). It is either always true, always false, or sometimes true- (in life we call this a gray area).

Take for example, 2 x 2 = 4. A mathematical novice, knowing that 2 + 2 also equals 4, could be fooled into thinking that multiplication and addition are one and the same. So this belief is “sometimes true” If you use 0 x 0 or 2 x 2, the assumption works out, even though it’s not a true principle. It just depends on what variables we use. I like to call this the broken clock theory. As the cliché goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you happen to look at it at the exact right time, you could be fooled into thinking the clock is accurate. When in reality, it was merely a coincidence, and wouldn’t hold true under a different set of circumstances. Choosing the #s 0 or 2 for the above equations and assuming that multiplication and addition are the same thing, is like looking at a broken clock at the exact right time. It gives us false positive evidence for our assumption.

So how can we be sure the examples we base our decisions on aren’t one time anomalies, leading us to inaccurate conclusions? Turning again to the math analogy, the best strategy is to use extreme variables. By so doing, we virtually eliminate the chance that we’ll stumble into a false positive. Small simple #s are more likely to lead us to false positive results. But if we use extreme #s, false equations crumble immediately. 0 + 0 and 2 + 2 are the same as 0 x 0 and 2 x 2. But if you take large #s like 312 + 489, there’s no way you could mistake multiplication and addition as being the same.

Take cosmetic surgery. For years I was against it. I believed that outside of reconstructive surgery following an accident, there was no reason to alter the physical body God gave you. I thought this was always a true principle. But then I asked myself why I got braces. Why did I go through 2 years of pain and thousands of dollars to alter my physical appearance? And I realized this is a gray area. I’m still opposed to most cosmetic surgery. But I have to admit, that principle doesn’t hold up under all circumstances.

How about tithing? Members of our church follow the biblical counsel to pay 10% of their income in tithing. But should we pay based on gross, or net income? I suspect most church members pay on their gross income. As long as the #s are small and reasonable, it’s hard to tell which equation holds up under all circumstances. If you pay 30% of your income in taxes, and 10% of your gross to tithing, that leaves 60% for you to live on. Now let’s say you pay the same 30% in taxes, but only 10% of your net income to tithing. That leaves you with you 63% of your income to live on. A mere difference of 3%. And because that # is so small and reasonable, it’s difficult to gauge which equation is true: gross or net income. And when it comes to giving the Lord money, when in doubt, we tend to round up- for obvious reasons. So let’s bump the #s to an extreme, and see which equation holds true under all circumstances. Let’s say you lived under a hypothetical government so oppressive, that it taxed its citizens 91%. If you earned $100 and paid tithing based on your net income, you’d pay $91 to the government, $0.90 to the church, and you’d live on $8.10. What if you were to pay tithing based on your gross income? You’d earn $100. $91 would go to the government, and you’d owe $10 to the church. In essence, you’d lose $1 by going to work. Both equations seem to hold up at reasonable taxation levels. But when things get extreme, one equation still works, and the other collapses. Now some may say that no government would ever tax its citizens that much, and it’s consequently a moot point. Let me remind you that under President Eisenhower between 1952-1960 the income tax bracket for America’s highest earners was in fact, 91%.

One final example: Euthanasia. Many people feel it’s always wrong to help someone end their life. I agree that it’s usually wrong, but could there be extreme circumstances that make euthanasia a gray area? In the film the Last of the Mohicans, a man is lifted up to be burned at the stake. As the flames reach him and he shouts out in agony, his friend, hiding in the nearby woods, pulls out a rifle and shoots him through the heart, ending his misery. It’s easy to say euthanasia is wrong when it’s cutting years off a person’s life to eliminate a moderate amount of pain. But when we take it to the extreme, and mercifully cut seconds off a person’s life to end excruciating pain, does the equation not get flipped on its head? Should we really issue blanket statements that something is always wrong, if there are ever variables that can be inserted into the equation that make it right? Unless you can condemn the man for shooting his friend, I think we need to accept that euthanasia is in fact a gray area, and not as black & white as we may have supposed.

Just like true equations will always work out no matter the variables; true principles will always hold up no matter the circumstances.