Sassafras as Modern Casualty of Group-Think: Change, Evildoing, and Law

Sassafras, Morality and Groupthink

Does the Urk Lighthouse Principle Apply:
Can we admit change in function with change in situation


Groupthink will not let it happen.

A.  THE URK LIGHTHOUSE PRINCIPLE -  Where there is change in reality, change the function
B.  EVILDOING -  This, for many, does not change regardless; and justifies Enforcement regardless of law

The Plight of the Authoritarian, the Dogma-tarian.

1.  The Urk Lighthouse Principle.  Where there is change in reality, change the function.  

Morality and the Urk lighthouse  

This lovely, classic lighthouse was set up years ago on the island where the little fishing town of Urk was built.  It had a function:  a warning to passing fishing boats and ships of the rocks, and to identify the island on which it was located. Then came change. Dykes drained the waterways, and the island now is a mere stubby peninsula. The lighthouse is not even on the water.  No need for that lighthouse at all.

Lighthouse, Urk, The Netherlands (now inland)

Times changed. Needs changed. This lighthouse now has only a tourist function. And auld lang syne. There is a value there in those new functions, but the moral  (save lives) and practical purpose of a lighthouse constructed in era 1 necessarily apply to era 2.
No dogma can sensibly hold that this lighthouse should be other than a tourist attraction now, a reminder of days gone by. Since noone questions the underlying "morality" of the lighthouse, let it be.

2.  The Sassafras Principle.  Where there is change in protection ability, change the restriction. 

Morality and the Fate of the Innocent Sassafras. 

Time was when the sassafras was a tree of resource:  wood that repelled rodents and bedbugs, so great in kitchens and for sleeping; for cures;  for oil that flavored rootbeer and roots that brewed into healthy teas, and  - used by some cultures as a hospitality offering, even to induce early abortions. 

An ingredient later used in ecstasy? Evil!  Inject huge amounts under the skin of mice that are averse to it anyway, find tumors, and ban the whole thing.  Whew.  Narrow escape there. 

So long as there is question about underlying "morality" of one use, ban it all. Is that it?

Whatever the reasons for calling it evil before, take another look. Times have changed. Uses change. We can manage its use, as we do with other ingredients. Bring it back, with information. Restrict amounts to be sold, as with other ingredients.  Label uses.  If someone wants to use sassafras for a purpose at home, why not, with labeling. Any ingredient misused is dangerous, even salt. So inform against the misuse.

3.  Morality and groupthink invade our legal analysis at every turn. 

Function and restriction. We can't get away from "moral" ideas, is that so?  Is any analysis objective. 

Evildoing:  It is worth a closer look, because it undergirds our culture's responses. We refuse to change the restriction just because we have other ways to protect what needs to be protected.  The idea of evildoing has already taken hold.

Follow us, follow, while we look into a history of labeling and reacting to other people's "evildoing". Look at Groupthink, at ://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html/ - the process of coming to conclusions on other than merit of the evidence. Group dynamics over quality of analysis.Where do we find groupthink?

The FDA has found evildoing, in effect, in sassafras, and by a highly flawed system ostensibly finding cancer by using allelopathic test animals (check posts); but really applying moral judgments, if they knew what people all along knew - is it because sassafras can be used for ecstasy, or birth control; or because it can be such a relaxer, such a friendly relationship builder, that it is a kind of hospitality truth serum Instant family. Does the Army want that secret (they did the testing for that).

Evildoing. Eminently manipulable to fit the circumstance. Did others in our history do any better? Or is this catch-all of "evildoing" just that. A catch-all, last recourse for those who are about to do what they wanted to do all along.

B.  EVILDOERS

1. Firm resolve against "evildoers" has a long history.

Go back to some of the Popes. Here is Gregory I, 590-604 ACE.  His philosophy included this admonition: The ruler must be rigid against evildoers. See
://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.iv.iii.viii.html/ .

That is the Christian Classics Ethereal Library article on on Gregory I. See his Pastoral Rule Book II, see New Advent's Church Fathers at ://www.newadvent.org/fathers/36012.htm/.

There are clear Biblical ties to labeling evildoers and what to do with or about them, see ://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/EVIL-DOERS/  The institution put it into overdrive, as it became more interested in defining itself than focusing the individual on his or her own life.  The pope wrote extensive letters to his flock on all sorts of issues, and we have not read all of them; just do a search for Gregory I or Gregory the Great. He is also known for Gregorian Chant, developed in his era.

2. Who defines "evil" any more.  

Theocracies.  Others use the legal system instead to define "crime" or "negligence".


In a theocracy, the religious element still uses evil as its basis, not legality.  Evil is the Bible, as a term, after all. Those theocrats in democracies are institutions as well as the the lone wolves, the self-proclaimed enforcers of theological-based issues, such as abortion. They also use "evildoers" to mean those who do not agree with their moral interpretations. By way of update, see that the early church wisely did not address the issue in the canon - smart and appropriate - see://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2009/05/early-christian-writings-on-abortion.html/.

Non-theocracies, however, use objective legal standards based on who is intruding on someone else with rights. Crime, or negligence.  Legal status is the criteria in non-theocracies.  Legal status defines evildoing and moves away from individuals' or particular religious institution's own moral and religious definitions.

The "legal" laws may coincide with an individual or institution's moral laws, however, if statutes are crafted along the theological model that some espouse.

Legal status defines behavior for a plural society, and works for those who can put their individual religions in their own pocket, without imposing it on others.

3. What if behavior that is legal in one country is illegal in another. 

Separate out legality from evil-ness, if your religion does not require that the state follow your moral precepts. Is the behavior still "evil"?  Not there.


Sexual orientation, cross-dressing, all that. Let yourself see.  Who would consider this particular legal establishment, a in Amsterdam "evil." Get your Mary Jane and other things here. These are called coffee houses. Their product marketing would be illegal here.

Is illegal "evil". Or is evil a result of someone's theological bent, the moral overlay taking over.

Amsterdam "coffee house"

This was a benign establishment, courteous when we looked in. An Amsterdam 'coffee house.'

Is it time to lighten up - focus on your own life, not what others are doing.
See this fashion site for evildoers: at ://members.tripod.com/%7Emrpuzuzu/fashion.html/

4. Carrying over the evil from one era into another.

Gregory I did not have to confront drug use. What would he do. Would he consider it a way of opening the senses to wider truths, as some mary jane advocates would say.

We see no drug prohibitions, no mild hallucinogens mentioned as "evil" in the Bible. Still looking.  And they are big evildoers today.

With that, it becomes clear that good and evil in the smaller manifestations, where one person's acts do not really impact on another's, are movable feasts. Subject to interpretation, not absolute. Is that so? Situational ethics? Opponents line up along authoritarian lines, see ://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm/ That assumes no change in life's conditions, opportunities. That dogma prevails regardless.