 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Membership
|
The Protective Umbrella
Among the things that distinguish between ourselves and the remainder of the plant and animal kingdom, two characteristics spring immediately to mind: Without these we revert to the level of our contemporaries in the world of nature--governed by the rules they must live by and nothing more. Ours is the choice to be human or to be an animal. Without communication we cannot notify each other of difference of opinion. We cannot explain our actions. We cannot give understanding. We have no mechanism for resolving conflict. There is no value in understanding the ramifications of what we do without understanding the possibility that we might be wrong. The concept of infallibility removes the option of choice in our actions. Again, the mechanism for resolving conflict is lost. What have we done then but reduce ourselves to the level of animals once again. We have foresaken our humanity in favor of the simple and unyielding laws of nature. Without access to communication and reason, any man becomes as great a threat as a lion or grizzly bear. Animals other than man are outside the framework of morality. Morality is purely a creation of thought. A seal that snips off the fins of a fish (leaving it as a terrified, living, helpless toy to be batted around until boredom and hunger make it lunch) has no conception of good and evil. Good and evil don't exist in the world of seals and fish; it is simply the way things are. In the world of man I can find no compelling reason in the laws of nature to irrefutably justify morality to any and all men. A man who chooses to act by the laws of the lion need not even consent to listen to the arguments in favor of morality. He need not choose to heed anything but that which compels itself to be heard by the laws of nature, if even then. But it is within the wisdom of man to create a compelling reason for morality; to fairly regulate the actions of those who choose to subscribe and to protect those subscribers from intimidation from those who choose not to subscribe. We cannot force people to join under the protection of this moral umbrella; we can only encourage them to do so by presenting its advantages and encouraging them to develop the thought processes necessary to weigh them. It is in our own best interest to help everyone in the world to become so thoughtful as to clearly see these things. In fact, our better security depends upon it. Protection under the moral umbrella is not so much explicitly subscribed to by an individual as is the rejection of the umbrella made by an explicit act. Restriction of the freedom of communication (such as muzzling free speech or press) or hostage-taking amongst the diplomatic community casts one immedidately at the mercy of the laws of nature. By such action he has opened himself to any response in the arsenal of the laws of nature we may choose to take. He has chosen the battlefield, not us. We, in turn, are subject to the laws of nature in our response. And one might survive or both might die. Nature does not care. Simply because wehave the option of striking with tactics from outside the repertoire allowed under the moral umbrella does not mean that it necessarily is to our advantage to do so. Often it is not. Often our best weapon is to help enlighten the people by whose volition the tyrants serve. Our successful example--our improving example-- and unrelenting support of free and open communication is our most useful tool. While we have shown circumstances where violence may be acceptable under the conditions of morality and nature we must understand the ramifications of its use at the expense of reason: Any oppressed that resorts to violence successfully will only have served to create the mirror image of itself. They will have only repressed the repressors. Tension will not have been removed by understanding; It's direction merely reversed. Potential for future violence will still exist. Violence may be immediately and narrowly successful but it will have been no solution to the real problem. Morality is no theoretical abstract. It is integrally tied up with the immediate practical protection of my own life. My proper concern is my own life. Your proper concern is yours. Our individual future safeties are integrally tied up with convincing as many other people in the world as we can the value of living under a moral umbrella that is both equitable and valuable for their own safety and well-being as well. We must encourage a system where by their own actions they decide under what conditions they will be treated. We must help people understand clearly the ramifications of what they do, It is in our own best interest to encourage their thoughtfulness.
Stephen B. Waters
|
|
||
|
