Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It is perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we have learned something from yesterday. There is quite clearly no difficulty in explaining why we are to comply with just laws enacted under a just constitution. In this case the principles of natural duty and the principle of fairness establish the requisite duties and obligations. Citizens generally are bound by the duty of justice, and those who have assumed favoured offices and positions, or who have taken advantage of certain opportunities to further their interests, are in addition obligated to do their part by the principle of fairness. The real question is under which circumstances and to what extent we are bound to comply with unjust arrangements. Not it is sometimes said that we are never required to comply in these cases. However, that is a mistake. The injustice of a law is not, in general, a sufficient reason for not adhering to it any more than the legal validity of legislation (as defined by the existing constitution) is a sufficient reason for going along with it. When the basic structure of society is reasonably just, as estimated by what the current state of thins allows, we are to recognize unjust laws as binding provided that they do not exceed certain limits of injustice. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

In trying to discern these limits we approach the deeper problem of political duty and obligation. The difficulty here lies in part in the fact that there is a conflict of principles in these cases. Some principles counsel compliance while other direct us the other ways. Thus the claims of political duty and obligation must be balanced by a conception of the appropriate priorities. There is, however, further problem. As we have seen, the principles of justice (in lexical order) belong to ideal theory. The persons in the original position assume that the principles they acknowledge, whatever they are, will be strictly complied with and followed by everyone. Thus the principles of justice that result are those defining a perfectly just society, given favourable conditions. With the presumption of strict compliance, we arrive at a certain ideal conception. When we as whether and under what circumstances unjust arrangements are to be tolerated, we are faced with a different sort of question. If needed it applies at all, we must ascertain how the ideal conception of justice applies, to cases where rather than having to make adjustments to natural limitations, we are confronted with injustice. The discussion of these problems belongs to the partial compliance part of nonideal theory. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

It included, among other things, the theory of punishment and compensatory justice, just war and conscientious objection, civil disobedience and militant resistance. These are among the central issues of political life, yet so far the conception of justice as fairness does not directly apply to them. Now I shall not attempt to discuss these matters in full generality. In fact, I shall take up but one fragment of partial compliance theory: namely, the problems of civil disobedience and conscientious refusal. And even here I shall assume that the context is one of a state of near justice, that is, one in which the basic structure of society is nearly just, making due allowance for what it is reasonable to expect in the circumstances. An understanding of this admittedly special case may help to clarify the more difficult problems. However, in order to consider civil disobedience and conscientious refusal, we must first discuss several points concerning political duty and obligation. For one thing, it is evident that our duty or obligation to accept existing arrangements may sometimes be overridden. These requirements depend upon the principles of right, which may justify noncompliance in certain situations, all things considered. Whether noncompliance is justified depend on the extent to which laws and institutions are unjust. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Unjust laws do not all stand on a par, and the same is true of policies and institutions. Now there are two way in which injustice can arise: current arrangements may depart in varying degrees from publicly accepted standards that are more of less just; or these arrangements may conform to a society’s conception of justice, or to the view of the dominant class, but his conception itself may be unreasonable, and in many cases clearly unjust. As we have seen, some conceptions of justice are more reasonable than others. While the two principles of justice and the related principles of natural duty and obligation define the most reasonable view among those on the list, other principles are not unreasonable. Indeed, some mixed conceptions are certainly adequate enough for many purposes. As rough rule a conception of justice is reasonable in proportion to the strength of the arguments that can be given for adopting it in the original position. This criterion is, of course, perfectly natural if the original position incorporates the various conditions which are to be imposed on the choice of principles and which lead to a match with our considered judgments. Although it is easy enough to distinguish these two ways in which existing institutions can be unjust, a workable theory of how they affect our political duty and obligations is another matter. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

When laws and policies deviate from publicly recognized standards, an appeal to the society’s sense of justice is presumably possible to some extent. This condition is presupposed in undertaking civil disobedience. If, however, the prevailing conception of justice is not violated, than the situation is very different. The course of action to be follow depends largely on how reasonable the accepted doctrine is and what means are available to change it. Doubtless one can manage to live with a variety of mixed and intuitionistic conceptions, and with utilitarian view when they are not too rigorously interpreted. In other cases, though, as when a society is regulated by principles favouring narrow class interests, one may have no recourse but to oppose the prevailing conception and the institution it justifies in such ways as promise some success. Secondly, we must consider the question why, in a situation of near justice, we normally have a duty to comply with unjust, and not simply with just, laws. While some writers have questioned this contention, I believe that most would accept it; only a few think that any deviation from justice, however small, nullifies the duty to comply with existing rules. How, then, is this fact to be accounted for? Since they duty of justice and the principle of fairness presuppose that institutions are just, some further explanation is required. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

Now one can answer this question if we postulate a nearly just society in which there exists a viable constitutional regime more or less satisfying in the principles of justice. Thus I suppose that for the most part the social system is well-ordered, although not of course perfectly ordered, for in this event the question of whether to comply with unjust laws and policies would not arise. Under these assumptions, the earlier account of a just constitution as an instance of imperfect procedural justice provides an answer. It will be recalled that in the constitutional convention the aim of the parties is to find among the just constitutions (those satisfying the principle of equal liberty) the one most likely to lead to just and effective legislation in view of the general facts about the society in question. The constitution is regarded as a just but imperfect procedure framed as far as the circumstances permit to insure a just outcome. It is imperfect because there is no feasible political process which guarantees that the laws enacted in accordance with it will be just. In political affairs perfect procedural justice cannot be achieved. Moreover, the constitutional process must rely, to a large degree, on some form of voting. I assume for simplicity that a variant of majority rule suitably circumscribed is a practical necessity. Yet majorities (or coalitions of minorities) are bound to make mistakes, if not from a lack of knowledge and judgment, than as a result of partial and self-interested views. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

Nevertheless, our natural duty to uphold just institutions binds us to comply with unjust laws and policies, or at least not to oppose them by illegal means as long as they do not exceed certain limits of injustice. Being required to support a just constitution, we must go along with one of its essential principles, that of majority rule. In a state of near justice, then, we normally have a duty to comply with unjust laws in virtue of our duty to support a just constitution. Given humans as they are, there are many occasions when this duty will come into play. The contract doctrine naturally leads us to wonder how we could ever consent to a constitutional rule that would require us to comply with laws that we think are unjust. One might ask: how is it possible that when we are free and still without chains, we can rationally accept a procedure that may decide against our opinion and give effect to that of others? Once we take up the point of view of the constitutional convention, the answer is clear enough. First, among the very limited number of feasible procedures that have any chance of being accepted at all, there are none that would always decide in our favour. And second, consenting to one of these procedures is surely preferable to no agreement at all. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

The situation is analogous to that of the original position where the parties give up any hope of free-rider egoism: this alternative is each person’s best (or second best) candidate (leaving aside the constraint of generality), but it is obviously not acceptable to anyone else. Similarly, although at the stage of the constitutional convention the parties are now committed to the principles of justice, they must make some concession to one another to operate a constitutional regime. Even with the best of intentions, their opinions of justice are bound to clash. In choosing a constitution, then, and in adopting some form of majority rule, the parties accept the risks of suffering the defects of one another’s knowledge and sense of justice in order to gain the advantages of an effective legislative procedure. There is no other way to manage a democratic regime. Nevertheless, when they adopt the majority principle the parties agree to put up with unjust laws only on certain conditions. Roughly speaking, in the long run the burden of injustice should be more or less evenly distributed over different groups in society, and the hardship of unjust policies should not weigh too heavily in any particular case. Therefore the duty to comply is problematic for permanent minorities that have suffered from injustice for many years. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

And certainly we are not required to acquiesce in the denial of our own and others’ basic liberties, since this requirement could not have been within the meaning of the duty of justice in the origin position, nor consistent with the understanding of the rights of the majority in the constitutional convention. Instead, we submit our conduct to democratic authority only to the extent necessary to share equitably in the inevitable imperfections of a connotational system. Accepting these hardships is simply recognizing and being willing to work within the limits imposed by the circumstances of human life. In view of this, we have a natural duty of civility not to invoke the faults of social arrangements as a too ready excuse for not complying with them, nor to exploit in evitable loopholes in the rules to advance our interests. The duty of civility imposes a due acceptance of the defects of institutions and a certain restraint in taking advantage of them. Without some recognition of this duty mutual trust and confidence are liable to break down. Thus in a state of near justice at least, there is normally a duty (and for some also the obligation) to comply with unjust laws provided that they do not exceed certain bounds of injustice. This conclusion is not much stronger than that asserting our duty to comply with just laws. It does, however, take us a step further, since it covers a wider range of situations; but more important, it gives some idea of the questions that are to be asked in ascertaining our political duty. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

Like the geography of the planet, the human body has until now represented a fixed point in human experience, a “given.” Today we are fast approaching the day when the body can no longer be regarded as fixed. Humans will be able, within a reasonably short period, to redesign not merely individual bodies, but the entire human race. In in 1962 Drs. J. D, Watson and F. H. Crick received the Novel prize for describing the DNA molecule, advanced in genetic have come tripping over one another at a rapid pace. Molecular biology is now exploding from the laboratories. New genetic knowledge has permitted us to tinker with human heredity and manipulate the genes to create altogether new versions of humans. One of the more fantastic possibilities is that humans will be able to make biological carbon copies of themselves. Through a process known as “cloning” it will be possible to grow from the nucleus of an adult cell a new organism that has the same genetic characteristics of the person contributing the cell nucleus. The resultant human “copy” would start life with a genetic endowment identical to that of the donor, although cultural differences might thereafter alter the personality or physical development of the clone. Cloning would make it possible for people to see themselves born anew, to fill the World with twins of themselves. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Cloning would, among other things, provide us with solid empirical evidence to help us resolve, once and for all, the ancient controversy over “nature vs. nurture” or “heredity vs. environment.” The solution of this problem, through the determination of the role played by each, would be one of the great milestones of human intellectual development. Whole libraries of philosophical speculation could, by a single stroke, be rendered irrelevant. An answer to this question would open the way for speedy, qualitative advances in psychology, moral philosophy and a dozen other fields. However, cloning could also create undreamed of complications for the race. There is a certain charm to the idea of Albert Einstein bequeathing copies of himself to posterity.  We could bring Mrs. Winchester back and learn the secrets of her mansion, and find out if she wanted to complete or expand it. However, what of horrible figures enshrined in history? Should there be laws to regulate cloning. Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg, a scientist who takes his social responsibility very seriously, believes it conceivable that those who are most narcissistic, and that the clones they produce will also be narcissists. Even if narcissism, however, is culturally rather than biologically transmitted, there are other eerie difficulties. Thus Dr. Lederberg rises a question as to whether human, if permitted, might not “go critical.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

“I use that phrase,” Dr. Lederberg told me, “in almost exactly the same sense that is involved in nuclear energy. It will go critical if there is a sufficient positive advantage to doing so. This has to do with whether the efficiency of communication, particularly along educational lines, is increased as between identical genotypes or not. The similarity of neurological hardware might make it easier for identical copies to transmit technical and other insights from one generation to the next.” How close is cloning? We have technically been able to clone humans for almost a decade, but as far as we know, no one has actually cloned a whole person. Technically, it is not difficult to produce a clone embryo. However, to even research human cloning, scientists would need to ethically collect a large amount of donated eggs and find enough surrogates to carry them. But even if they made it through that logistical nightmare. Across the board, scientists have found that some embryos expire before they are implanted. And those that make it to term often die soon after birth or end up wit severe abnormalities. Simply, these are risks that are easier to take when it comes to experimenting with non-human beings. However, scientists have learned how the various organs of the body develop, and they have begun to experiment with various means of modifying them. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

 Eventually, things like the size of the brain and certain sensory qualities of the brain are going to be brought under direct developmental control. I think this is very near. However, this ethical, moral, and political questions raised by the new biology simply boggle the mind. Who shall live and who shall die? What are humans? Who shall control research into these fields? How shall new findings be applied? Might we not unleash horrors for which humans are totally unprepared? In the opinion of many of the World’s leading scientist human cloning is a disaster waiting to happen. However, gene editing has some benefits. Imagine the implications of the biological breakthroughs in what might be termed “birth technology.” Within a mere ten to fifteen years a woman will be able to buy a tiny frozen embryo that has been perfected, take it to her doctor, have it implanted in her uterus, carry it for nine months, and then give birth to it as thought it had been conceived in her own body. The embryo would, in effect, be sold with a guarantee that the resultant baby would be free of genetic defect. The purchaser would also be told in advance the colour of the baby’s eyes, and hair, its gender, its probable size at maturity and its probable Intelligence Quotient (IQ). #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Indeed, it will be possible at some point to do away with the female uterus altogether. Babies will be conceived, nurtured and raised to maturity outside the human body. It is clearly only a matter of years before the work begun by Dr. Daniele Petrucci in Bologna and other scientists in the United States of America and the Soviet Union, makes it possible for women to have babies without the discomfort of pregnancy. Fertilized human eggs might be useful in the colonization of the planets. Instead of shipping adults to Mars, we could ship a shoebox full of such cells and grow them into an entire city-size population of humans. When you consider how much it costs in fuel to lift every pound off the launch pad, why send full-grown men and women aboard space ships? Instead, why not ship tiny embryos, in the care of a competent biologist…We miniaturize other spacecraft components. Why not the passengers? Long before such developments occur in outer space, however, the impact of the new birth technology will strike home on Earth, splintering our traditional notions of sexuality, motherhood, love, child-rearing, and education. Discussions about the future of the family that deal only with The Pill overlook the biological witches’ brew now seething in the laboratories. The moral and emotional choices that will confront us in the coming decades are mind-staggering. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

Many believe that we are playing God and should not, but we have been made in the image of God and should we sit back and watch as the environment and the human race and animal and plant life have been destroyed, or try to fix errors and make a primary race of humans that is healthy, control the weather and make Earth a paradise and produce enough food to feed humanity, make other planets inhabitable to sustain the human life that is produced by a healthy society, and product animal and plant life from going extinct? We really could produce an animal planet, have a forest planet, so forth and so on. It has sometimes been asked whether God commands certain things because they are right, or whether certain things are right because God commands them. I emphatically embrace the first alternative. The second might lead to the abominable conclusion that charity is good only because God arbitrarily commanded it—that He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another and that hatred would then have been right. I believe, on the contrary, that they err who think that of the will of God to do this or that there is no reason besides His will. God’s will is determined by His wisdom which always perceives, and His goodness which always embraces, the intrinsically good. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

However, when we have said that God commands things only because they are good, we must add that one of the things intrinsically good is that rational creatures should freely surrender themselves to their Creator in obedience. The content of our obedience—the thing we are commanded to do—will always be something intrinsically good, something we ought to do even if (by an impossible supposition) God had not commanded it. However, in addition to the content, the mere obeying is also intrinsically good, for, in obeying, a rational creature consciously enacts its creaturely role, reverses the act by which we fell, treads Adam’s dance backward, and returns. We therefore agree with Aristotle that what is intrinsically right may well be agreeable, and that the better a human is the more one will like it; but we agree with Dr. Kant so far as to say that there is one right act—that of self-surrender—which cannot be willed to the height by fallen creatures unless it is unpleasant. And we must add that this one right act includes all other righteousness, and that the supreme cancelling of Adam’s fall, the movement full speed astern by which we retrace our long journey from Paradise, the untying of the old, hard know, must be when the creature, with no desire to assist it, stripped naked to the bare willing of obedience, embraces what is contrary to its nature, and does that for which only one motive is possible. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Such an act may be described as a test of the creature’s return to God: hence our fathers said that troubles were sent to us. A familiar example is Abraham’s trial when he was ordered to sacrifice Isaac. With the historicity or the morality of that story I am not now concerned, but with the obvious question, “If God is omniscient He must have known what Abraham would do, without any experiment; why, then, this needless torture? However, as St. Augustine points out, whatever God knew, Abraham at any rate did not know his obedience could endure such a command until the even taught him; and the obedience which he did not know that he would choose, he cannot be said to have chosen. The reality of Abraham’s obedience was the act itself; and what God knew in knowing that Abraham would obey was Abraham’s actual obedience on that mountain top at that moment. To say that God need not have tried the experiment is to say that because God knows, the thing known by God need not exist. However, God uses these legends in the Bible and gives us free will to cultivate us and not allow nature nor nurture to control us, in hopes that we learn to yield to the righteous will of God through guidance and not force. If pain sometimes shatters the creature’s false self-sufficiency, yet in supreme Trial or Sacrifice it teaches one the self-sufficiency which really ought to be one’s—the strength, which if Heaven gave it, may be called one’s own: for then, in the absence of all merely natural motives and supports, one acts in that strength, and that alone, which God confers upon one through one’s subject will. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Human will becomes truly creative and truly our own when it is wholly God’s, and this is one of the many senses in which one that loses one’s soul shall find it. In all other acts our will is fed through nature, that is, through created things other than the self—through the desires which our physical organism and our heredity supply to us. When we act from ourselves alone—that is, from God in ourselves—we are collaborators in, or live instruments of, creation: and that is why such an act undoes with backward mutters of dissevering power the uncreative spell which Adam laid upon his species. Hence as suicide is the typical expression of the stoic spirit, and battle of the warrior spirit, martyrdom always remains the supreme enacting and perfection of Christianity. This great action has been initiated for us, done on our behalf, exemplified for our imitation, and inconceivably communicated to all believers, by Christ on Calvary. There the degree of accepted Death reaches the utmost bounds of the imaginable and perhaps goes beyond them; not only all natural supports, but the presence of the very Father to whom the sacrifice is made deserts the victim, and surrender to God does not falter though God forsakes it. The doctrine of death which I describe is not peculiar to Christianity. Nature herself has written it large across the World in the repeated drama of the buried seed and the re-arising corn. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

From nature, perhaps, the oldest agricultural communities learned it and with animal, or human, sacrifices showed forth for centuries the truth that without shedding of blood is no remission; and though at first such conceptions may have concerned only the crops and offspring of the tribe, they came later, in the Mysteries, to concern the spiritual death and resurrection of the individual. The Indian ascetic, mortifying one’s body on a bed of spikes, preaches the same lesson; the Greek philosopher tells us that the life of wisdom is a practice of death. The sensitive and noble heathen of modern times makes one’s imagined gods die into life. Mr. Huxley expounds non-attachment. We cannot escape the doctrine by ceasing to be Christians. It is an eternal gospel revealed to humans wherever humans have sought, or endured, the truth: it is the very never of redemption, which anatomizing wisdom at all times and in all places lays bare; the unescapable knowledge which the Light and that lighteneth every human presses down upon the minds of all who seriously question what the Universe is about. The peculiarity of the Christian faith is not to teach this doctrine but to render it, in various ways, more tolerable. Christianity teaches us that the terrible task has already in some sense been accomplished for us—that a master’s hand is holding ours as we attempt to trace the difficult letters and that our script need only be a copy, not an original. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Again, where other systems expose our total nature to death (as in Buddhist renunciation) Christianity demands only that we set right a misdirection of our nature, and has no quarrel, like Plato, with the body as such, nor with the psychical elements in our make-up. And sacrifice in its supreme realization is not exacted of all. Confessors as well as martyrs are saved, and some old people whose state of grace we can hardly doubt seem to have gotten through their, on average, seventy to ninety years surprisingly easily. The sacrifice of Christ is repeated, or re-echoed, among His followers in varying degrees, from the curellest martyrdom down to a self-submission of intention whose outward signs have nothing to distinguish them from the ordinary fruits of temperance and sweet reasonableness. The causes of tis distribution I do not know; but from our present point of view it ought to be clear that the real problem is not why some humble, pious, believing people suffer, but why some do not. Our Lord Himself, it will be remembered, explained the salvation of those wo are fortunate in the World only by referring to the unsearchable omnipotence of God. Guide to travelers, for your help I pray, that you might be with me as I go on my way. I give greetings to the God of this place, I, a traveler, offer up prayers. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

From my land to this one, I have come, meaning no harm to any who dwell here. Land of Spirits, I pray to you; though I do not yet know you, I honour you. Lord of Trees, I pray to you as I enter this forest. Please watch over my steps while I am under your care. Throughout all generations God endureth and His name endureth; His throne is established, and His kingdom and His faithfulness are eternal. His words have living and abiding power. They are forever trustworthy and for all time precious both for our fathers and for us, for our children, and for all future generations of His servants, the seed of America. As for our ancestors so for our descendants, Thy teaching is good and endures forever and ever; it is a truth, a faith, a law which shall not pass away. It is true that Thou art the Lord our God and the God of our fathers, our King and our fathers’ King, our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our Fathers. From everlasting Thou has been our Creator, the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer and Redeemer forever; there is no God besides Thee. Thou has been the help of our father from of old, a Shield and a Deliverer to their children in every generation. In the height of the Universe is Thy habitation, and Thy laws of righteousness please reach unto the ends of the Earth. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Winchester Mystery House

At night, passers-by heard ghostly music wafting from the dark mansion. The bell in the belfry high in the gables tolled regularly at midnight to summon incoming flights of spirits. Later it tolled again to warn these visitors to return to their sepulchres. About once a week these departed ones relaxed and danced in the Great Ball Room.

Yes, there was a six-foot cypress hedge enclosing the estate. The writer’s father in 1888, helped with much of the ground’s landscaping, pruned this hedge and planted many of the still-standing ornamental trees. He mentioned no barbed wire–nor did the man who removed this hedge decades later.

Entrance was not really barred but we were reluctant to trespass. Adults stretched their necks when they drove by and small boys settled for a peek through the cypress hedge. So much for answers to a few of those endless rumors surrounding our mysterious lady.

Ghosts have always been a part of the human psyche and experience. Some ghosts are so quiet you would hardly know they were there. The Victorian Gardens are open today!  winchestermysteryhouse.com