I was thinking the other day that leading a life that aspires to be wholesome and fulfilling for as many people as possible needs some fundament, otherwise you would have to solve that problem first. It is a basic question that Maslow addressed with his pyramid of needs.
The fundament of modern societies seems to be in danger at present because of a lack of education (which would primarily make people understand what it had cost in struggle and suffering to provide their basic needs), organised crime (which is a cancer growth in society), a lacking of perspective for a majority of human lives, and the lack of real democracy in a lobbyist run society.
There is another, probably more important aspect: The moral values which are the basis of healthy human interaction. We tend to overlook these values and use them as we see fit. They apply when we want them to but not if they get in the way. This isn‘t anything new, there have always been supposed moral guardians who, in protecting these values, lived outside them.
Is this a fact of life, that we need guardians who do not live by our moral standards in order to protect those standards? Does it not make the standards somehow lacking? Or is the consequence of upholding such standards completely linked to martyrdom, at least during episodes of oppression? Must we accept the fact that human beings will continually live in conflict and that some of the best will continually be the victims of violence?
If this is true, is it surprising when the moral standards of whatever kind are accompanied by attempts to make them absolute and divine, with the threat of inescapable consequences if we fail? Is there an alternative to martyrdom and absolutes such as God?
I think human evolution was aborted very long ago. The long term result is suffering. No gods will relieve this suffering, nor will any heros. The problem is outside the human senses. Few will realize anything about the root problem. I consider human suffering as being based in bad blood. A good life is reducible to good genes.
I find that a very deflating point of view. Wouldn’t you say that human beings may be moving in the wrong direction, but that there still is the chance or turning about? I was listening to an Indian who said that he felt that we have put the emphasis on external problem solvers rather than acknowledging that we are both problem creators and problem solvers because we have the capacity, unlike other species on the planet, to have a widespread effect - whether positive or negative. This means that we could, if we could but loosen our grip on the things that are causing suffering, and work towards a stable wellbeing for as many people as possible, we could change the development positively.
It is also difficult to say that it is reducible to good genes - where did the bad ones come from? Did both live side-by-side at one time and the bad genes have taken the lead?
Bob-- 2013 finds me asking similar questions. I am pacifist living in a culture of violence which is making me sick. Somehow I have lived to be 63 without ever owning a gun. Obviously I am a fool living on dumb luck. You ask the question of anarchy. How I wish it were possible. For who will guard us from the guardians? Nevertheless, the state seems to me to be a necessary lesser evil. And more than that is the problem of evil itself. I wish it were only an intellectual problem for the existence of God. Unfortunately it is an existential fact.
Every state has servants who clearly overstep the law - lawfully perhaps, but it still questions the law to which we must abide - and it has often been the case that through their dealing with “problems” more and sometimes greater problems have arisen. In fact, it is a bit like the widespread use of antibiotics has created a greater risk of infection by multi-resistant germs, so too has the eradication of certain moderate “enemies” caused the rise of unforeseen radical enemies. Our modern society is convinced that we can dictate under what conditions change is brought about, and these “guardians” try to bring it about. So far, we have managed to make the world even less safe than it was 20 years ago.
Although the cold war ended with protests and songs, revolutions have once again become bloody and threaten to become widespread struggles amounting to anarchy and bloodshed with untold numbers of civilian casualties. The radicals have no moderate opposition in their countries and so their dictatorships are pulled down by further dictatorships and the struggles of centuries are forgotten and have to be repeated. The great chance of humanity, to grow together and realize how interreliant and how interactive progress is, is being risked today with no certain outcome. The spiritual revolutions are met with militant opposition, we speak about the “clash of cultures” and groups in all religious colours have their own vision of a kind of Armageddon.
Take your pick … and then ask yourself how the wheel of suffering is going to be broken through.
Well, I’m guessing we won’t ever create heaven. Coordinating such a project can’t work, I think. Perhaps a true pacifist simply accepts violence as a fact of life, just like death or taxes. I know some people don’t accept either - but surely they are deluded and make things worse for themselves?
Overall, the answer is yes to all your questions. Why? Because conflict and discrimination is an integral part of all life forms. The causal chain is a little complex, so let’s start with a familiar statement: “In the beginning…”
Almost all life forms use the over-arching methodology of discrimination. This can be described as comparison-contrast, pattern recognition, take-reject, or whatever emphasis you choose. It is the prime methodology of survival. Most life forms flourish when two conditions are in place: Space (in which to expand) and resources (life sustaining energy). While there are symbiotic relationships in almost every place on the planet, the bulk of life form interaction results in conflict and competition for space and resources. I’ll let you fill in the spaces between competition amongst species of bacteria and the competition we really want to address which is humans. The point is that this is how all life forms function and there is no escaping this obdurate reality. OK. Making the giant leap…
Granting all the opportunities afforded us by sentience, it does not trump millions of years of animal evolution. In many ways (too many?) we carry all the methods of survival and flourishing of our earliest animal ancestors. That we have created all sorts of schemes and behavioral patterns which some would call morality, at bottom, it remains competition for space and resources. That will never go away until the last human goes away.
What standards of morality would you choose for the continued flourishing of humanity? I can’t think of any (except my own) that would find even majority acceptance let alone universal concurrance. You have suggested a benevolent maximum moral good for the largest grouping possible, but what would that be?
Consider: it is possible for killing… let’s not call it killing… let’s call it “returning people to the flow” a moral obligation. A flourishing human society can only be maximized by the best examples of human capacity. It would be cruelty to allow infants born with abnormalities to survive in a flourishing society. The same line of reasoning can be used in dealing with the aged and infirm. It would be cruel to allow the aged to become dependent on an otherwise vibrant society. Along with this thinking comes calling into question mental capacities, belonging to the “wrong” ethnic group, or any other definition chosen. And so we have infanticide, euthenasia, and genocide all considered to be of the highest moral obligation. Fortunately, that form of morality has failed a number of times historically, but it still remains a possible “moral” position.
Is there an alternative? Maybe. Possibly. It is much as our years of discussing the mystery and our relationship with that. It can only happen in whispers, in small numbers, and locally.
So yes, the world will continue to advance “morality”, attempt to enforce it through messiahs and any locus of power available, and the drive to “fix” the universe will continue. The wheel of suffering will continue. It’s built in to the procession of life.
I don’t think accepting the culture of violence is the way to go. I see people around me doing that. I have done it myself. I think it is important first to be aware of the suffering, the evil and the violence outside and in oneself. Awareness of the wheel of suffering has caused me to lament it. I lament that I will die without seeing the end of it. I lament that I cannot free my children or my grandchildren from it. May my lamentation will purify me of the violence within my own heart. May I turn from violence and in its place plant the seeds of peace as Thich Nhat Hanh and Philippians teaches.
It isn’t a matter of accepting violence, it is simply acknowledging that it will always be with us because that’s the way we are built. We can do our level best to reduce violence both in ourselves and without. But all the things that add up to violence will never completely go away. No matter our ideals, there is always the anti…
Felix, I kind of accept violence, but I use a gun to lessen the chance I can be harmed by it. In the handful of times that I ever actually ended up in a situation where defense was necessary, I used mace instead. You might look at that as another necessary evil. It’s a good way to get out of trouble without causing any lasting harm.
Bob, I’m not sure that there are enough resources in the world to ever end suffering. If we define suffering as a lack of those things which prevent it. There aren’t enough smart people to address all the ones who need education. There isn’t enough food or medicine to go around, at least not with the profit motive in place. People want to distance themselves from animals, but if you step back and look at it, your generation is eating it’s young. It’s a fact of nature that I think you and I seem to agree that we might not be able to get around. It’s what gives rise to individualism and the desire to outdo the other in the name of one’s own survival. If you believe that one unified society at peace in the world would still result in a lack of resources which would leave all the rungs of the ladder in it the same as where they are now, then you might take the option of having more faith in yourself than you do the other. It could be the wise thing to do. In the end, no one knows which is better or if we could really grow enough corn or train enough teachers, and out of fear we don’t go out and try because we’re afraid if we fail we could lose what we have.
If so, how lamentable. Does such acknowledgement increase or decease consciousness? I suggest it decreases it. Better to experience each blow as the affront to the good that it is. Besides, that “violence will never completely go away” doesn’t mean that the culture of violence we have created now must prevail. There were/are societies we can point to that are less violent. Can’t we become like them?
You raise lack of education, organised crime, lacking of perspective for human lives, and a lack of democracy. As Smears pointed out, I would also include a lack of resources.
Globalization has thrust society into a completely new era; with challenges never before seen.
I read that Tweets were being posted 30 seconds after the earthquake in Costa Rica (followed by an outpouring of compassion).The magnitude of this outpouring is something never before seen in human history but the magnitude of earthquake has been experienced many times.
Is our society worse or is our attention only focused on what is lacking?
Acknowledging the devil increases consciousness. We then have an enemy to fight against. Yes, we could be less violent and perhaps we will manage that in the short-run, but until we acknowledge and begin the task of limiting population growth violence will increase not decrease. As the competition for resources escalates, violence will follow.
One could hope for some sort of massive die-back so that we are forced to live in a more peaceful setting, but that seems unlikely and my cynicism says that we won’t learn any useful lessons should that occur. We seem to be heading toward a cataclysmic stage in less than three more generations. Any idea what sort of resources are necessary to sustain 2 billion people? That’s what we are facing, and yet no society is preparing for or even offering any solutions. If we think we have issues today, what does 2 billion more people add to the equation?
I’m not trying to offer doom and gloom, but at what point do we begin to face up to the limits of population growth and the continued extraction of diminishing resources? Curtailing violence is an admirable ideal, but misses the more important issues that will promote even greater violence. It’s axiomatic that plentiful supplies reduces values, and in a few more decades, life is going to become dirt cheap and culling the herd will be a consequence. Violence over a scrap of bread will become common. Is this hyperbole on my part? I wish…
I read the other day of a psych study at MIT. They were testing the levels of dishonesty in groups of volunteers. Long story short, they found that asking the volunteers, prior to the exercise, to try and remember as many of the ten commandments as they could cut the dishonesty displayed later to zero.
Go religion.
In another study, the willingness of volunteers to consider undertaking socially reprehensible acts - such as date rape for example - was focussed upon. But with a twist. Volunteers were questioned in two states - unaroused (sexually) and aroused. In the aroused state the willingness of volunteers to consider these acts as doable rose on average something like 700%.
We are Jekylls and Hydes.
Gotta go, but I’ll be back. The main thrust is that I think you cannot develop moral systems cold. Any moral system must deal with the prevention of situations which invoke the devil in us all.
I’ll disagee with Smears about the lack of resources. There are sufficient resources now to feed clothe and house every human. The problem is not dearth; it is distribution. That makes the problem a moral one for anyone who would espouse universal well-being. This is not to say that those who get the goods will suddenly become compassionate and empathetic. It appears to me that suffering hinges on a desire for more than enough to satisfy basic needs.
I’m not sure how that changes anything long term unless you have an endless supply of cheap energy in your back pocket.
Scenario: I live in a poor country unable to produce enough food to feed me. Moreover, there are no mechanisms in place that allows me or my government to pay for the transport of foods located in other areas. I suspect that dying of starvation is my destiny. Does that make it dearth enough?
We’ve already seen this as reported by almost all food-aid programs. They have food supplies, the money that was supposed to buy food has to be spent on high cost energy to move the food where it is needed. So much for distribution…
Thanks tentative. The devil? It never occurred to me that the December 14 shooter was fighting over food due to overcrowding. Population density is but a slice of the salami IMO.
