The Bane of Our Existence
There is a characteristic of humanity that is not part of
our better nature. It is, in fact, the
bane of our existence. It brings with it
repeated trouble through missed opportunities, misunderstandings and even
outright conflict amongst people. It
persists because it comes under the guise of our betterment while being more
easily engaged in than its alternative.
What is this bane?
Our bane is that we are existentially observational, but not
self-reflective.
What does that mean?
Floating abstractions do not help us and ambiguous claims are equally
worthless as definitions are needed. Our
bane consists of two parts. The two
segments are simple, but like most things simple their application is
difficult.
Part one - existentially observational - simply refers to
that we can see things outside of ourselves and can make value judgments upon
what we see. This by itself does not
refer to the validity of those judgments.
But to be existentially observational is to experience the existence of
something, whether it is something tangible or conceptual, a physical object or
an action, matter or a concept, it is a thing experienced.
Part two - not self-reflective - simply refers to that
though we may see something 'out there', we do not process that thing as
something that equally may affect us - that based upon its being out there and
we are not out there or our bias to it, the same principles observed affecting
others or happening elsewhere do not necessarily apply to us. This may affect individuals or collectives,
but are more easily embraced and solidified with more people adhering to it. Those with similar ideas bolster each other,
keeping the thought process maintained through the shared, preferred vision.
First we'll look at the existentially observational; second
we'll look at not being self-reflective.
The initial examples whereby the existentially observational seem benign
and obvious, making their true principles set forth to be overlooked.
Existentially Observational: a moral principle states that
between two neutral parties (neutral here meaning there is no prior
obligation/victimization between the parties), it is wrong to initiate force of
one upon the other to take the victim's valuables, and this remains the same
even if a third neutral party is involved to 'out vote' the third. We recognize that we do not have the right to
force another to act according to our dictates, or to take from them without
permission what they rightfully have earned.
Equally, we recognize that someone else does not have the right to force
us to do things against our will, or steal our justly acquired resources - even
if we are the minority of a group. A
stranger or neighbor cannot simply and properly, come up and take the food off
your plate.
Not being self-reflective: as a principle, not being able to
force another to give up their property or work against their will applies to
all. However, we allow it - and even
expect it nowadays - when it is decreed as part of a government program, when
the State says give or obey. Through
various programs being implemented in welfare (whether it is individual or
corporate/poor or rich), for health coverage, loan guarantees, or just to
'level the playing field' and for 'income equality', each one is deemed acceptable
forced participation or redistribution of one's resources (time, effort and
money).
Existentially Observational: we not only recognize that we
do not have the right to force someone to do something, but that we also do not
have the right to use force to deny someone from pursuing their happiness. In the same manner, we do not recognize
someone else having the legitimate right to deny us from pursuing our goals,
how we may interact with one another as long as no one's rights are violated.
Not self-reflective: in a similar vein as the first point,
it has come to be allowed, even expected that the government may regulate how
we interact with one another or how we pursue happiness in our daily lives. If you want to sell your goods or services to
those who have reviewed your work and deemed it worthy of patronage, it does
not matter if you did not get an approved license/permission from the State on
an expanding range of goods and services.
If we go outside that permission, we can get fined, arrested or worse if
we challenge it. After your own
deliberation, if you want to consume something that may have some risks,
whether it is drugs, alcohol, raw milk or anything else whereby two free
parties may wish to exchange, if it is not approved then you are legally denied
it.
Existentially Observational: if you wanted to defend
yourself, you have the right to do so and take the precautions to assist that
defense. In a similar manner, you cannot
prevent someone else from defending themselves in a manner they see fit. Not self-reflective: again, following the
aforementioned examples (there is a pattern), the State is expected to regulate
who can have what type of firearm, where they can have it, and currently trying
to regulate how much ammo it can carry.
Existentially Observational: killing is wrong contextually,
for if someone was coming at you with a knife or weapon with the intent of
killing you or a loved one and you used lethal force in return, then killing is
justifiable. Murder, bringing with it
its own context of not in response to the use of force is immoral. We recognize we cannot murder, and expect
those who do commit murder to be prosecuted if they succeeded (even,
preferably, if they did not succeed).
There is a process, a context outside of self-defense
whereby killing is deemed possibly justifiable whether it is through law
enforcement such as the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of murderer who may
violently resist or through the declaration of war in response to a hostile
nation. In each case it is not up to an
individual's whim, but a formal process through the courts for the issuance of
a warrant or through congress to declare war because of a threatening nation. In either case, there is to be an objective
panel that is look at the evidence and decide whether it is sufficient for an
arrest warrant to bring an individual who violated rights to justice, or the
collective action of nation acting against another; it is not just whim of one
being the guiding directive.
Not being self-reflective: those in the government, in
particular the president (not just one but most since the last declaration of
war by congress during WWII) have gone beyond the process of the objective
system leading them to be judge, jury and executioner. Not just individually such as when Anwar
al-Alwaki and his son Abdulrahman who were killed in a drone strike, but
countless others for anything from 'police actions' to 'nation building' (e.g. Vietnam
to Iraq), with all the killing and animosity it brings. Obama is just continuing the practice
established, for congress, as well as 'we the people' have not asserted our
roles, allowing one branch of the government to exceed its bounds.
In the same manner, we cannot detain someone or search
someone, or be subject to someone else's whim to search us, which is
existentially observational. Being
self-reflective, we see that we do allow arbitrary searches/surveillance
regularly upon us, as well as detentions without just cause based upon the
whims of those in authority, whether it is The PATRIOT Act, a TSA search, DUI
checkpoint, NSA spying, stop-and-frisk, border searches or the like.
Existentially observational: we recognize it is wrong to
categorize every member of a group based upon a superficial characteristic
(such as race, or socio-economic status) as equally guilty or innocent of the
malevolence or beneficence of one member of 'that' group. We resent being grouped with and be judged as
guilty for merely being in the same category as one who did commit a
crime. Not being self-reflective: we
allow and expect various authority figures to make such collectivistic
condemnations, whether it is the State to punish or benefit the rich through a
tax to 'pay their fair share', subsidy to 'help the economy' or bailout for
being 'too big to fail', or any group against another not being a member of
one's own class/religion.
An existentially observational furtherance with respect to
religion, let us look back upon killing: a parent whose negligence led to their
child dying is deemed a bad parent, or at least one who is guilty of negligence
even if beforehand they were a good parent; a parent who murders their children
is properly deemed not just as a bad parent, but as a murderer.
Not being self-reflective: at a secular level, tying back
into the aforementioned of not allowing the whim of an individual elected
leader be the one who decides when military action would be made (congress
being the one who should declare war), we do not hold the president guilty of
all the killing done as collateral damage trying to get targets not formally
declared guilty or deserving attack. In Pakistan
On a sacred level, Abraham is held up as model of devotion
when he was preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac to God. He did not actually sacrifice Isaac, so some
may say he is an invalid criticism even though he fully intended to sacrifice
his son and at the last minute was stopped from murdering him. If a different example is needed, look no
further than General Jephthah who did sacrifice his daughter to God, and was
rewarded for doing so.
Regardless of whether it is Stalin or Pol Pot starving the
people, God targeting the first born, or everyone outside of Noah's family -
millions of children and others were murdered: it is human cleansing of a
specific population or humanity entire .
All of these are done in the name of the 'greater good' whether that is
to be in the name of one's country or humanity.
Lastly, this brings us to our final (non-exhaustive)
existentially observational point: a basis for moral upbringing should be part
of education. Not self-reflective: what
should that basis be? Most want to have
some religious base. There is an
objective moral base, but most interpret their individually-based cultural norm
as the objective moral standard. As just
mentioned, different religions have different standards and examples of proper
moral behavior (how to treat women, gays, infidels, apostates and so on), so
when one wants religious teaching in school should it be
Christian?-Islamic?-Pagan?-Buddhist?
In addition to whatever the believer's overarching religious
base may be, exactly what subset of that system should be taught, for each has
divisions/schisms within them: each has members that have gone to war and
killed members of other religions (e.g. Crusades or more recently the various
Muslim/Christian clashes initiated by both sides, in Africa for cross-religious
conflict and the inner conflicts such as in Islam with Kurds, Shiites and
Sunnis and in Christianity with Catholicism and Protestantism - some included
bloodshed).
A true moral system without bias is possible when religion
is removed from it. It is equally
foolish to teach a biased religious system in place of an objective moral
system in the same way it is to religion as objective scientific fact in
Creationism and to 'teach the controversy' that the universe was 'spoken' into
existence, just as a stork delivers babies.
Belief systems can be examined at the Existentially
Observational level; here they can be dissected. However, ontology is not affected by the
epistemological development of the seeker.
Regardless of whether one believes in an actual entity of God named
Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Krishna or states there is no God, that the individual (or
collective) believes it does not have an effect upon the reality of whether or
not that Deity (or deities) exists or not.
Likewise, whether one believes a Capitalist, Socialist,
Communist, Fascist or Monarchial system is the proper system of government for
the best society does not have an effect on the efficaciousness of those
systems in being the best for what is it to be the 'best'?-how is it achieved?-who
decided for whom?-how is the plan to be the best implemented? That is at a pragmatic level; how moral each
system may or may not be is unaffected by how efficacious it may be.
The key question requiring exact definitions is: what is it
to be 'the best?' The corollary
questions include to whom?-and how? If
we only look at pragmatic concerns and efficaciousness, then we can see that the
pyramids still stand for us to see, and Jim Jones was beloved by his followers
- at least by enough to take care of all the rest of them. Slavery or brainwashing, both may be
effective at achieving an end, but both are immoral.
Cultures and beliefs are not equal and many have contrasting
if not mutually exclusive belief systems; people have the right to believe in
them and participate in them according to the self-direction that they choose as
their option. Whether one is a believer
in a Deity or is an Atheist, they each have the right to believe as they so do
and as an extension allowing each other to follow their right or wrong
conclusions. If one wants to free
himself from his cultural chains, that is his right, just as it is to put those
chains on if he actually wanted to do so, or keep them on after seeing one has the
option to remove them. The key point of
this is being responsible for one's actions and choices; this is the reason why
psychiatrist Viktor Frankl advised having a matching Statue of Responsibility
to be with the Statue of Liberty. You
can choose, but own your choice; abdication is a choice.
How does a culture embrace science, logic and reason as
contrasted to dogmatism and superstition, and most importantly, how is its
reason-or-superstition view placed upon the members?-allow its members liberty
and self-direction in general, or force obedience/obsequiousness? Whether one's god is a Deity or the State,
the base of belief is the acceptance that this third party/Deity has the
authorization and ability to do that which we cannot, such as 'morally' steal
from, imprison and even kill us, while also overriding the nature of identity
such as ignoring the law of supply-and-demand, ignoring moral laws regarding
the initiation of force, and changing a stick to a snake.
We cannot properly force another individual to think and
behave to live according to our values. That
is the principle of tyranny we do not want forced upon us. Individually, people do not have this power;
if one person acts without any backing, they can be ignored, spurned or
retaliated against either individually or with backing. Individuals acting as a group form
collectives. It takes a system, a
collective to implement and force obedience.
Where is this not being self-reflected?-when dealing with other cultures
- interventionism, 'spreading democracy' or sharia. 'Our way' is to be imposed upon the other.
Collectives fall upon a continuum: based upon ideas on one
side, and superficiality upon the other side.
Collectives can be based on morally irrelevant issues such as sports and
which team is liked; collectives can be based upon such life-and-death issues
such as nationalism. The crucial
distinction to be made is how does the collective 'think', for collectives do
not think; individuals think. It is the
difference between scientists congregating to review the results of a study and
coming to an agreement based upon the evidence against any group who states
that by the fact one was born with a certain tint of pigment in their skin or
have a different religion, each needs to be grouped differently and have a
different moral value - not just description, but proscription and alienation
based upon superficiality. Any thinking
mind can contribute to a scientific theory; only those matching the appropriate
demographic may enter the equivalent of a kid's fort with the sign 'girls stay
out!'
Collectivist thinking is not thinking; it is in fact the
lack of thinking. It is the embracing of
a non-thinking characteristic, and giving it prepotency over actual
thought. Collectivistic thinking
embraces a non-substantial norm, and that norm becomes dogma.
The bane of our existence emerges from two parts: 1) that
humankind is a social animal and we create group dynamics based upon various
criteria, such as who is in 'my' family and friends, our culture, who likes the
same music, sports team, religion and so on.
There are those who are more like us, and those who are not. Others may have beliefs or act in ways one's
own group does not like. The further
someone is from one, the more their negative aspects will be taken as a
personal characteristic - an ingrown/inherent part of who they are instead of people
like us growing in a difference social context, in order to justify feeling
contempt for them.
2) the valid cognitive task of categorization, but taking it
beyond where its proper limits should be.
Categorization is a valid, pragmatic process when kept in its proper
place: differentiating Red Delicious apples from Ambrosia and Fuji Fuji
When this differentiation is made, new standards are created
and people act upon them with the necessary consequences that follow. When 9/11 happened and thousands were killed
in a single day with multiple explosions, many were understandably upset, angry
and wanted revenge and/or justice. We
were attacked, our innocent people were killed and that is wrong so a response
to such an attack is right - right in context.
But what has our response been? There has been no formal declaration of war
by congress; what has been passed are actions in response to an undefined 'War
on Terror' and its corresponding high death tool. In response to the killing of thousands on
one day, we have killed thousands over the course of years with multiple attacks
and multiple explosions.
It's not self-reflective to think that those who have loved
ones killed 'over there' don't feel the same anguish as we do when our loved
ones get killed; without a declared war with a State (though for the citizens
that would not make too much of a difference), it is people living their daily
lives getting killed (family, friends and countrymen) by another group. It is not self-reflective to see the
religious symbols one believes in are real, but 'theirs' are foolish, such as
to state that though it is nonsensical to have Athena come from Zeus' head, but
it is acceptable to have a woman come from a man's rib. We recognize it is perjury to lie to the to
government, 'bait and switch' fraud when done by a salesman, but it is 'just
politics' when elected officials lie and misrepresent. We recognize that we cannot kill arbitrarily,
but allow and even celebrate it if our God does it for us. And an important conclusion to this point:
when we grant God or the State permission to act as such, we also grant its
agents to act accordingly to enforce its ends.
Each is an example of going beyond the obvious, and into our
bane.
There is an objective good that is beyond any cultural
interpretation, for each interpretation attempts to find the objective good
based upon temporal and spatial limitations.
Shadows hint, but do not show the actuality of the subject. This objective standard exists whether or not
we humans will be consistent about it. We
need to keep categorization in its proper place, in addition to recognizing
that principles do not change because of crossing a cultural border, by a
deity's commandments, or by a majority wanting something and stating an elected
(or appointed) official makes a promise.
