What is going to be expressed in this posted topic may not come out as clearly as intended. It may not be as direct or laid out as easily as it could be for the most clear understanding. For that, you have the sincerest apology of which I can make.
And that was a perfect example of justifying the very existence of this thread. Now let us broaden it to include the reason some people continue to breathe in and out with life. Who do we ultimately answer to for being here? To whom are we directly or indirectly responsible for giving substantial reasons to prove we have a right to exist... or even try to survive?
As being part of the animal kingdom, our natural "basic" instinct is to survive. To fight or flee. To adapt. Yet are we any better than a virus when it comes to the destruction we've wrought upon our planet in supporting our spreading numbers? We are consumers and destroyers. This goes beyond the natural cycle, the circle of life, evolution and self-sustaining processes which repeat.
Yet suicide is against the law. Euthanasia is a topic just recently covered. The death penalty for the most heinous crimes is still a very controversial subject. It goes into the "right of life" for every individual. Maybe certain kinds of monks do see this in every living thing, refusing to kill bothersome insects or invading spiders. Sometimes people do realize the true feeling of loss when not only our family members perish, but when our pets do as well... cats, dogs or birds... whatever kind they may be.
So then we come to whether we should or have to answer to others for any reason to justify our existence. Should we have to work? Should we be hunters or farmers or food-gatherers or manual labouring people to warrant gaining medical attention, comforting or solace of friends and family.... or even daily meals??
Society shuns those not willing to contribute to the benefit of the whole or even the maintenance of one's own regular daily needs (food, shelter, clothing, housing, transportation, etc.). Yet we set double standards when we say it is okay when they are feeble; too decrepit or too ill from disease or malady, too mentally or emotionally unstable.
We, as meaning all people at one time or another, have cringed at the thought of someone getting a "free" ride. But how many honestly think the homeless chose to be that way just to get free soup and bread? Or to hope for a single night's allowance to sleep indoors in a safe environment upon some kind of cot or mattress? Or a blanket or coat to help keep them warm or dry?
Sure, it'd be easy if we could just give up on people, say they are a lost cause. This is akin to anyone being unable to compete at whatever kind of professional sports for whatever reason. People can't always maintain the same kind of productivity, the same great performances, the same level of commitment over time as they once did. SO older people are fired from jobs they've had for decades, right before retirement to where they lose benefits. Or they're released before some kind of bankruptcy proceeding occurs to where they would be considered a "creditor" for uncompensated time at work. Or before their medical coverage has to cover some huge expense or unexpected condition.
Maybe Society (as referring to the general masses) doesn't feel they matter any more, that they owe them anything. If that is the case, should Society really expect that the individuals that are ignored should owe anything in return? That laws should be observed, privacies and property respected and that no evil acts be done just out of spite?? This is NO JUSTIFICATION for irresponsible, irrational behaviour of any kind. Yet it does try to clearly indicate the double-standard where something is expected for nothing in return. When we resort to that, we get back into dealing with slavery, master or supreme races or classes... the bourgeois. King and country and all that.
There are not really any easy answers and there are even fewer "right" answers. But when it comes down to judging whether other people have the right to exist by whatever means necessary to continue surviving in harsher environments, people should be wise enough to see that it was bound to come to such a resolution. So many laws to observe and no real reward at the end for those having been very lawful individuals... and all that is promised is punishment for disobeying. No wonder laws are so biased to focus on punishing people, they stem from religious beliefs of what is sanctimonious. Supposedly protecting the good from the bad. PROTECTING the weak from the strong.
We've got a long ways to go as a society, as homo sapiens. As George Orwell put it best in his book Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Nice use of Animal Farm, Rancer :) .
Now for my response.
Society as a whole...sucks, for lack of any more appropriate word. But we have to ask ourselves: "Why does society suck?" Society sucks because we, as humans, as animals, suck.
We live in a constant state of external conflict caused by something deeper. A state caused by a constant struggle between our instincts and our emotional ideals. Between our instincts and the structures our society has "built" that don't actually exist, though we firmly believe they do.
Let's start at the basics. As our species was in the process of evolving, and even in our ancestor species, society was limited to tribal, nomadic cultures. We had friends and family we'd protect, and everyone else was competition. Of course, protecting our friends and family meant they'd do the same for us, so there's an evolutionary plus. At the same time, assuming everyone else was out to get us, and acting on those assumptions, helped us win food, shelter, and protection over...everyone weaker than us, really.
Fast-forward a few thousand years. Through evolutionary processes, whether genetic or simply social, those instincts have been ingrained in us. "Protect my tribe; defeat other tribes." At the same time, however, we now live in a world consisting entirely of "nested tribes".
For example:
| QUOTE |
We all consider ourselves a part of the "human race", or "human tribe". Therefore, our instincts should be to protect all humans. But within the human race, we've created "political continents" into which we group ourselves and each other. Now we find that the Europeans and the Americans, North or South, are quite different, and so should be regarded tribes external to each other, thus creating the "defeat them" urge. And of course, Africa can be left to starve, as long as there's no money to be made from them.
Even within a continent, let's say North America, we have "countries". Again, these don't exist but within our minds, but that's all that's necessary. So now we have members of the "North American" tribe split into the "United States tribe" and the "Mexico" tribe. And Canada, too, but they tend to stay out the way :P . So they fight.
Now, within the "United States" tribe we have "States". Although this split is not as effective as the larger ones, states often disagree from one to the next (gay marriage is a prime example of this). So, states fight each other.
Within a state, we have cities. When one city thinks it's better than another, gangs form. They fight. |
Everything in the quote box was all to make one point: our instincts are based on discrete tribal cultures. Current society is based on tribes within tribes within tribes within...you get the point. So what do we do when the members of one of our tribes, who our instincts say to protect, are also members of an opposing tribe, who our instincts say to destroy?
We don't know. We haven't figured that out yet. If and when we do, either we will finally achieve world peace, or we will have destroyed the human race entirely. But I don't think we'll ever figure it out. In the rare instances where humans recognize this issue, cognitive dissonance occurs. And we handle it the same way we handle all other cognitive dissonance: We rationalize and make up reasons why we should hate these people, but not those.
And that ties this all into the original topic. We feel we can decide who does and does not deserve help because, frankly, we don't know who does and does not deserve help. Our instincts tell us one thing, our brain tells us another, and until they can learn to get along, all moral decisions will be completely arbitrary.
Sucks, doesn't it? Hopefully, though, more and more people will learn when to use instincts and when to ignore them. Only then can there be any true hope for humankind.
-IMP ;) :)