The king's Ethic versus the wretch's ethics

The one formal Ethic of the king is to obey his laws or else be destroyed; meanwhile, the informal ethics of the wretch are those techniques she had to utilized order to raise her offspring to the level of a king.  In other words, matters pertaining to what is the law and what are ethics reside upon opposite ends of a spectrum.  To keep the people confused as to which is which, the line has been kept blurred between what is the one Ethic pertaining to the king's law and what are those ethics which have been learned by the wretch as a result of survival.

What I am suggesting here is that the ancient Greek philosophers were behaving subversive in their considerations of many of the topics seeming accepted today such as ethics, physics, and metaphysics as, during that time, they were always careful to operate below the conscience of the watchful eye of those in authority.  Indeed, as I have already argued in my Chinese eight legged essay, the offspring of the ruling monarchy during that early time were considered rational by born entitlement.  The king and those in the royal family were always considered right or else.

       

I realized recently the differences between the concepts of law and ethics.  Contrary to popular belief, they are on exact opposite ends of the scale.  Indeed, as law is a necessary tyranny, ethics is pressure applied to our conscience by our peers.
In other words, the law is not capable of doing anything other than destroy as it is a tyranny necessary meaning that it should be limited as much as possible.  In contrast, ethics pertains to happiness and its advancement.
"Ethics" was postulated as a rebellious movement by philosophers during the time of ancient Greece.  In contrast, those who ruled over the philosophers and everyone else during that time didn't need ethics.  Instead, either the people did what they said or they got beaten.
Similarly, ethics did not need to be explained within the proclamations written of, by, and for the king of England.  Instead, one either did what the proclamation said or else.    

Preserving our Bill of Rights is necessary in expressing our free wills. This is important so that, when making the choice of giving our lives for the sake of others, we will be judged to have given them dutifully.

John 3:16:  For God so loved the world, that He gave (away) His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God loved the most wretched of this world so much so that, among the endless countless numbers of the sons of men, He became as the most faceless and nameless among them.  Indeed, by Him dying on the cross and shedding His blood for our sins, His Grace came forth dutifully from the darkness ex nihilo (out from nothing) to serve Him as His helper.

As our Founding Fathers within the Declaration of Independence mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor, they also charged us today with the challenge that it is our right, it is our duty . . .."

Before we can do our duty as Americans, we first need to defend our right to free will.  In other words, it is important to understand the difference between what is a right and what is a duty.  When the most wretched ventured forth ex nihilo in order to raise up the most worthless Son of Man, they did so dutifully of their own free will.

So it isn't enough to be free, as such people are not always dutiful, but to express a free will by doing whatever is necessary to preserve our Bill of Rights.