It is of the utmost importance, in the terms laid out, to avoid being harmed, rather than to avoid causing harm to another person. One cannot EVER not harm another person, because one has no perception of how the other person will relate to the "harm" being preformed. For example, suppose I steal 1000 dollars from another person. Now, let us assume that said person is a millionaire, and doesn't keep track of his money. Have I caused him "harm"? I would argue that ignorance of a crime negates the crime itself. One must be aware, firstly, of a harmful action in order for it to constitute as a crime. Those seeking to be ethical, and to be treated as ethical, must live in the present, in the "real" world, not in the capacity of lofty and abstract ideals. Let us now assume that I am angered at my friend and throw a wild punch at him. Let us now assume that my friend is drunk, thus, he doesn't feel the punch. In fact, in his drunken state, he laughs at me, despite the fact that he is bruised. Has he been harmed? Again, I cannot know how he will feel tomorrow - I have no control over his perceptions. Thus, why should I concern myself with pleasing these abstract, unknowable whims of the "Other". I denote the Other as anything that is not myself, that is, anything that I do not have conscious control over. To live at the whim of the Other, whim by definition cannot be known, is to risk living fully for oneself. The first priority of every rational human should be to protect himself from harm (as he perceives it) not to protect others from harm (as he perceives that they perceive it). Guilt, getting caught, all these things, these dependencies upon which the original action may result, are subjective to the individual. Subjective values, such as the value one places on not feeling guilty, are again beyond my control. All I can concern myself with is my reaction to this feeling of guilt, and to an extent, the value I place on my reaction towards choosing actions that avoid or enhance this feeling.
Therefore, the above points considered, we must place the higher emphasis on the skills to discern whether or not our beliefs are true or false, rather than the skills to persuade others without beliefs. The beliefs of others, again, are subjective. What concern is it of mine the beliefs that others hold, so long as my number one priority is to avoid harm? If I cannot be harmed, and this is my goal, am I not free to discern my own beliefs? I do not leave myself at the whims of others, nor do I attempt to control or influence the beliefs of others - I am a content, complete human. The weak, spineless, and personally unstable are those who try to conform others to their beliefs. As Soren Kierkegaard beautifully put it, "The door to happiness opens outward -- he who tries to push his way in will not be able to enter." Let us look inward, through reflection and mediation, at OUR beliefs, before we dare to attack, change, or influence the beliefs of others. There is no doubt that Kierkegaard would support this claim. To be concerned with the beliefs and opinions of others is to risk losing that which one believes himself. Again, let us examine the Church. Dante places 7 Popes in Hell. These Holy men, these Papal dignitaries, this Vicars of Christ, are men who, in order to spread "The world of God" condoned the murder of thousands, and the abuse of thousands more. It cannot logically be argued based on the historical teachings left behind by Jesus that he would have approved of such things a the Crusades, the Inquisition, the selling of indulgences, the polygamy of the Popes, and yet they preformed these actions in his name. They lost sight of the great ideals they held, the morals they championed, and lost themselves in the process, and, at least according to Dante, earned a spot in Hell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You have brought up some very interesting points and left me very intrigued by your blog.
First, I don't believe that ignorance of a crime negates the crime itself. The crime committed is still a crime no matter what. Even if the man you stole from did not know you took his money, you did steal. There's no avoiding that fact. I think if the millionaire did not care that money had been taken from him some of his values may be a little twisted.
You seem to be trying to interpret what harm means. To harm is to inflict injury mentally or physically, it is also considered wrong or immoral (if you look at different dictionaries). I think that you would be harming your friend when you give him that punch because it is a violent act that did indeed affect him whether you know it or not. It seemed to me like you're trying to think harm as something that is perceived by the people inflicting or receiving. If we lived in a world where people didn't care if they were doing harm or not there would be no possible way for humans to cooperate in any fashion.
To live fully for oneself is a very self-absorbed notion and I think that we should be living for the benefit of each other. Every man for himself seems like a very archaic value to be honest.
I'm an atheist, but I really hope there is some kind of punishment after death, similar to Dante's Inferno, for those people who molest kids and abuse people and animals in this life and feel no shame/guilt/remorse.
The other thing is, why do we get so self righteous about people who abuse animals (like Michael Vick), but people who abuse kids or who bring abusers into their kids' lives are allowed to have MORE kids to screw up and then they become victims and the cycle keeps on going! When is enough enough?
My view is, people who abuse other people are much deeper in the circle of Hell than people who abuse animals.
Post a Comment