Sitting on the sand with waves breaking in the distance, I found myself pondering the human mind and what shapes it to be as unique as it is. It seems to be one of the great natural phenomena that we can observe. Although it may not exist on the scale of a cosmic supernova, it surely reflects the same dynamism. We humans are a funny bunch, as far as we can see the only creature on this planet whose concerns include mortality, morality, and empathy. Thus in an attempt to analyze this kooky bunch we are, we ought to remain ever cognizant of the liberating reality that humans beings are animals. Although very advanced, our lives will fundamentally exist on a similar plane of worth as any other living being.
Out of this context emerges a modernized moral sense, manifested in the Golden Rule. This inescapable intellectual endpoint is firmly fashioned; its form following the sturdy construction of the tripod. The subconscious proclivity we possess in regards to our ecologically organic roots comprises the first pillar. The second is the lack of a Creator God and his subsequent monopoly on moral authority, at least as its been explained by other humans. The third and final pillar to this tripod is a firm belief in moral absolutism; there is only one set of right and wrong for all humans, and justice entails every human actually living to that standard that we all agree is just. These three ideological pillars equate to the Regla de Oro, otherwise known as treating other people the same as you would have them treat you. This powerful yet humble creed is what we ought to walk with on the reg': it serves the purpose of making our lives richer and more fulfilling.
Modern religion keeps our society more archaic and stifles the expansion of human rights. We see this manifestation most clearly by listening to the gears of the machine collectively discourage the questioning of the ultimate design. These bully pulpits are given megaphone status, thanks to the billions of untaxed dollars they shamelessly collect from their blind followers. Their messages often revert to prescribing faith as an alternative to carrying the burden of working towards human progress.
Living amongst the residents of academia, it feels as if we wish to believe that the spirits of the Greek acropolises are here today. The University of BS, and the essence it radiates, makes us better people by increasing our ability to be a critical thinkers in a world of permaflux. As a Science of Power major, my personal academic course load is primarily comprised of history and philosophy classes that camouflage their complexity under the guise of parsimonious theoretical frameworks. Nevertheless, these avenues of study have great impact on how we think today as they have been very explanatory about certain fundamental characteristics of human thought. We not only inquire about what we value, but also why we value it. Notice the use of the magic word. The Why? is just as important, if not infinitely more important, than the What? aspect of our fundamental nature.
The scientific worldview may seem rather benign to some, but there is just as much mysticism and beauty in the naturally occurring world as there could ever be in the created world. The uncovering of processes and patterns that nature exhibits has a tendency to bring one closer to the reality of the surrounding universe. While humbling, it is also exciting to feel apart of such a dynamic ebb and flow. Among the core scientific beliefs that are pertinent to our worldview is the reality of evolution. It makes a strong case in its assertion of being the truth, due to the fact that when asked Why? the theory responds with proof in the form of physical evidence. Very few areas in life are able to produce such strong foundations, and upon discovering the collective narrative of the most brilliant minds in science today, it is hard to deny. This of course presumes a lack of major ideological hurdles to jump.
Taking evolution into account, it helps us understand that we humans are simply advanced animals, subject to the same realities of life that our fellow wild creatures have to deal with. Obviously the major difference between animals and humans is that we are cognizant of our consciences. It often feels that we have a painfully small amount of lifetime with which we can enjoy the simplicity of existence. We are plagued on the daily by our distinct ability to miss the life we have come to love, as our minds are ever saturated with the juices our own mortality. Human existence is sort of akin to a fucked maze: we don’t really have a clue where we’re going; what we do have is the capability of recalling where we’ve been; hoping all the while that at some point we reach an end that we’re never sure will come, further exacerbated by the our ignorance of what the end actually is. The burden of daily life is therefore recapitulated into a desperate struggle to appreciate every last second spent alive on this Earth.
I’d like to preface this next section with thanks to a very special individual named Joe White, who has made an impact on many young people’s thought process throughout his career as a professor of ethical philosophy. One of the major lessons that Joe instills in the mutating minds of his pupils is the debate between moral and ethical relativism. The process begins by distinguishing the difference between morals and cultural norms or customs. What time of day a person eats dinner has not a fucking thing to do with “right” or “wrong.” A person’s willingness to turn their back on a suffering neighbor in need does. The former is a matter of taste, while the latter is a matter of ethics. There are certain aspects of the diversity of human lifestyles that are more about taste and circumstance than right or wrong. These things include language, social etiquette (table manners, etc.), and perhaps even laws in some cases. These are examples of things that are rationally indeterminate, in which equally rational agents, equally well informed, may reasonably disagree. This scenario represents the reality of cultural relativism and underpins the diversity of the human experience, but what we’re really interested in is the notion of morality. Are ethics relative? Can something be right in one culture and wrong in another, or are there a set of human rights that afford every one of us a reciprocal amount of respect for each other?
Consider Western liberal democracy versus Islamic theocracy. If moral relativism is true and there is no right or wrong, then we would not be able to criticize the harsh treatment of women or the lack of religious freedom characteristic of places such as Saudi Arabia. If there is to be one set of moral principles that should stand for all people, it should be the ones that most closely adhere to the universal value of reciprocal respect, our Golden Rule. Enter a thought experiment: a group of people are tasked to create a system of governance for a society they will all soon live in, only they do not know what type of person they will be once the world is actually put into action. The point of the experiment is to imagine the world’s rules from the perspective of someone other than you. Then ask, “Is this fair?” Would the powerful patriarchs in traditional Islamic societies choose to keep the current system, over which they dominate, considering the chance that they might have to come back as woman and be subjugated under the same type of unfair treatment? Highly fucking doubtful.
Um, pardon my intrusion, your Majesty, Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, may we ask you a question? What are your thoughts on never being able to drive a car, never being able to own land without permission from your husband, or never being able to show your cheekbones public sunshine? You cool with that? No? Shocking. The redeeming utility of the experiment thus descends upon us: people would undoubtedly choose not to recreate a system that endogenously possesses inequality and oppression, even if they had an unlikely chance at being the oppressed within it. This is a testament to the assertion that all people deserve to live by the same standards of justice, no matter who we are. (That is unless you’re a fucking asshole, in which case you’ll probably say some pathetically idiotic thing like, “might makes right.”)
Construction of our modernized moral tripod therefore entails the following: a rabid disbelief in God as a creator/controller of the Earth and its inhabitants; a firm belief in humanity’s status as humble creatures of the Earth rather than divinely created masters of nature; and the perspective that all members of the human species are endowed with a dignified essence that cannot be taken away. This is all the justification a person would need in their life to subscribe to the principle of the Golden Rule. The only way the human world can live up to its potential is if each person chooses to treat every person they come into contact with the same respect they know they deserve themselves. Daily life would be much easier and more beautiful, so long as we can learn to implement this as a universal cultural practice. Don’t believe me? Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment