On Cults of Personality and Social Capital

Even among social conservatives, some suggest that there are persons who are so good, so noble, so virtuous, and so unselfish that laws ought not to bind them--that such persons ought to be above liability.  In some state, somewhere in America, there is an executive, so secure in the trust of administrators and legislators that he enjoys an exemption by law or execution from law and liability.  In some church, somewhere in America, there is a shepherd, so secure in the trust of his sheep that he need not fear to disregard the law and reap the consequences:  his sheep know that he observes a higher law.  Above the law, these persons might slander, defraud, coerce, and oppress others without legal consequence.  But they won’t, some assure us, even though they are, actually or effectively, lifted above the law, because of their perceived virtue.  And if they ever do, it will only be for the good of all--including those who have been slandered, defrauded, coerced, and oppressed by them.

While some persons may exhibit supreme goodness, unless they are supreme in every way—a virtual and virtuous dictator—is there any security in license for them or others--even in their virtue?  So long as they are subject to higher authority and subject to less virtuous cults of personality, might they not be coerced, by their superiors, to use their license for evil--unless they are willing to sacrifice everything that they value (ie. life, liberty, health, wealth, reputation, family, community, and etc.) for any virtuous principle at any time?  In other words, is there any integrity to virtue when it is released from liability and law but still under authority less virtuous?

An example will illustrate this problem.  Suppose there was a judge so goodly and wise and virtuous that his people made him king--setting him above the laws of man.  His word and person became the very law of the kingdom itself.  His picture adorned every building in the kingdom.  And the people rejoiced.  But time passed, and the kingdom was annexed by a greater kingdom.  A stronger king arose who was not without virtue, but almost.  This king was shrewd.  He knew of the esteem enjoyed by the lesser king because of his virtue.  So, he did not dethrone him.  Instead, he put his words and ideas in the lesser king's mouth.  In loyalty (?), the lesser king spoke them.  And the subjects obeyed them.  But in time, it appeared that the words and ideas of the stronger king were not loyal to the first kingdom and its people.  In fact, they divided the kingdom against itself.  This caused the virtuous king to mourn.  Out of virtue (?), he avoided conflict, secretly (!) snubbing his superior and any who took sides.  But his head was on fire and his heart was at war:  to preserve his virtue, he must, out of loyalty to his kingdom and people, sacrifice himself for virtuous principles; but to keep the people generally secure beneath his better influence (?), he must betray the principles of the first kingdom and its people.  Would he trade individual virtue and conscience for general peace and security?  He grieved:  "if only", he thought:  "if only, our king were subject to just laws; if only I were subject to just laws--and not lifted above them by the esteem of others for my unbounded virtue."

Once above the law (by policy or practice) but still subject to less virtuous others, such persons will face unconscionable choices:  for example, what level of lawlessness will they tolerate in their masters, in others, and in themselves?  Will their license as an arbiter become the means of lawless pardon or condemnation as they obey authority and/or expediency?  What lengths will they go to uphold an order for others that they themselves are above?  Will they, for example, put themselves at hazard for laws that apply arbitrarily to others only?  What virtuous principles must never be compromised to license (ie. the license of one's superior)?  In other words, what level of lawlessness would cause one, lifted above the law, on principle, to reject higher authority and to sacrifice life or liberty, health or wealth, reputation, family, or community?  Also, will license, even in virtuous practice, necessitate cascading lawlessness out of fear that one's subordinate license will come to be prosecuted by higher authority?  Will the virtuous, perhaps overwrought by the demand for charismatic leadership, perhaps out of love toward family and friends, confer their license on others?  Who, then, will remain liable to the law except the obscure?  Will the just and lawful interests of the least ever trump the license of one acting on behalf of the many, influenced by the most, under his license of virtue?  License exercised within but acting outside a rule of law is deceit.  It is antithetical to integrity and to virtue.  When it lacks sovereignty, doesn't the license of virtue become just a wicked and corruptible law unto itself?