I've been thinking about this one a lot recently, and I'm still working the whole thing out, so don't kill me if I say something offensive.
There are two things that acted as the catalysts for these thoughts. The first was a conversation I had with a couple of my favorite philosophers defending my opposition to the death penalty, pacifism, and opposition to abortion (and with those three things I've lost most of you). The second thing, and yes, this is kind of another book plug, was a book that we were assigned for my sociology capstone class on the sociology of evil.
I'll get to that later though. I'mma start rambling now.
Morality is a tricky thing from a social sciences perspective. According to the tenants of cultural relativity, which we must take accept methodologically if not philosophically, morality is a social construction, just like everything else. There is no objective morality, and every action must be judged based on the moral precepts of the cultural context of said action. I should be clear here, I don't hold to this in terms of my personal philosophy, and only do so tentatively in my studies.
Certain evolutionary psychologists have theorized that morality is based on a certain kind of ethnocentrism. Any moral act is one that is beneficial to the whole, sometimes to the detriment of the individual (take that Ayn Rand, and now I've lost even more of you). That said, the source of quite a lot of human evil, and especially the systematic violence found in war and genocide is also based on ethnocentrism. This ethnocentrism calls for protection of the "us" (the ethno- of ethnocentric) by way of the defeat or destruction of the "them."
So, what of morality? "Greater love has no man than this, that he should give up his life for his friends." There's that ethnocentrism again, the group is more important than the individual. But, who is the ethno? Who is the "us?"
"'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 'Teacher, who is my neighbor?'" And thus follows the story of the Good Samaritan, a roundabout way of saying, "everybody."
According to my reading of the words of Christ, he is promoting an "us" that has no "them." He is promoting a morality based on love for all people. Most people wouldn't take issue with that statement, but we sure as hell live like we do.
This is where the Nazis come in (Goodwin's Law at play). While reading this book, I was forced to look at a bunch of child-killing, drunken, war-crime-guilty Nazis and empathize. My father has been known to get in trouble with his peers for saying that there is little difference between us and Nazi Germany, and he doesn't mean that in reference to current politics on either end of the polarized spectrum. He means that human beings are human beings are human beings. The ancient Sumerians are more similar to Nazi Germany are more similar to Tibetan monks are more similar to the founding fathers are more similar to Islamic extremists are more similar to us than they are different.*
We recoil at the thought that "we" could be made of the same stuff as "them." I'm no Nazi. I'm not anything like one of those terrorist bastards. I'm not a fag. I'm not a racist tea-partier. I'm not a dirty hippie. I'm with "us," and "they" are not. Inherent in every evil produced by ethnocentrism is the dehumanizing of the "them," the xeno.
If we are called to a faith and morality based on the love of all people, then the easiest way to get around it is to start de-classifying people. The Nazis were monsters. We will defeat the evildoers. Inhuman atrocities. There is no such thing as an inhuman atrocity. Every atrocity that ever has been, has been entirely human. Evildoers are evil in as much as they are human, and monsters have only ever existed in stories.
This entire thing has been amplified in my mind in light of the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden. I've already made my controversial statements about the death penalty and war, so... I'm not gonna do it again in a context that would lose me the only people who are left reading this thing. The thing I will comment on is a response that a relative of mine (who I love very much and respect quite highly) who posted the following as their status update, "Hope you are NOT enjoying your new home Bin Laden!" No. Just. No. This is not how we ought to respond to the death of another human being. This is how we respond to the destruction of an ogre. This is how we respond t the death of Sauron. This is a fiction.
If we are to truly transcend our morality from simple ethnocentrism, if we are to truly accept the teachings of Christ, then we should never, ever rejoice at the idea of someone's hypothetical eternal damnation. We must acknowledge the humanity in the "them" and by doing so, we must prioritize their humanity as the primary source of the "us." I realize that Osama Bin Laden's death is a symbolic thing. It's not about one man's death, it's about... other stuff. I haven't analyzed it, and I don't really want to. The problem is, we do this all the time. An American Journalist is beaten in Egypt, and we're all over that story. Today, 12 Iraqis died violently and it might make it on the news as the final statistic in a story on "the Arab response" to Bin Laden's death.
I'm not trying to argue that we should all walk around in a haze of depression because of all the horrible acts of humanity, but rather, it seems to me that it is easier for us to ignore much of the evil in the world when it is committed by inhumans and/or against inhumans. Problem being, there's no such thing as an inhuman this side of a Marvel comic book.
It is my firm conviction that true morality, the morality of Christ, is one which views every single person as a neighbor, and every single group as a collection of neighbors. There is no "them," there is no xeno, there is only "us," there is only "ethno." I am made of the same stuff as Hitler, Bin Laden, Mother Teresa, and St. Paul. I am capable of the same kind of horrors as the worst of war-criminals, and I am capable of the same kind of miracles as the Amish community in 2006. I have as just as much in common with the monsters as I do with the saints.
To take this position is to admit the depressing fact that humanity is prone to incredible evil, not due to some metaphysical fluke that produces a bad generation every now and then, but because we are human. If you're still reading this rambling drivel, then you are familiar with my addiction to hope. In this instance, my dad shared some with me this past Saturday.
"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him." Revelation 22:1-3 (Italics mine)
I don't know what form that promise will take. I don't know what that will look like. But I know the intention, and we have seen a glimpse of the heart of God. The healing of the nations.
* If you disagree with this paragraph, call me up and we'll talk it over, I'm already going too long here
There are two things that acted as the catalysts for these thoughts. The first was a conversation I had with a couple of my favorite philosophers defending my opposition to the death penalty, pacifism, and opposition to abortion (and with those three things I've lost most of you). The second thing, and yes, this is kind of another book plug, was a book that we were assigned for my sociology capstone class on the sociology of evil.
Morality is a tricky thing from a social sciences perspective. According to the tenants of cultural relativity, which we must take accept methodologically if not philosophically, morality is a social construction, just like everything else. There is no objective morality, and every action must be judged based on the moral precepts of the cultural context of said action. I should be clear here, I don't hold to this in terms of my personal philosophy, and only do so tentatively in my studies.
Certain evolutionary psychologists have theorized that morality is based on a certain kind of ethnocentrism. Any moral act is one that is beneficial to the whole, sometimes to the detriment of the individual (take that Ayn Rand, and now I've lost even more of you). That said, the source of quite a lot of human evil, and especially the systematic violence found in war and genocide is also based on ethnocentrism. This ethnocentrism calls for protection of the "us" (the ethno- of ethnocentric) by way of the defeat or destruction of the "them."
So, what of morality? "Greater love has no man than this, that he should give up his life for his friends." There's that ethnocentrism again, the group is more important than the individual. But, who is the ethno? Who is the "us?"
"'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 'Teacher, who is my neighbor?'" And thus follows the story of the Good Samaritan, a roundabout way of saying, "everybody."
According to my reading of the words of Christ, he is promoting an "us" that has no "them." He is promoting a morality based on love for all people. Most people wouldn't take issue with that statement, but we sure as hell live like we do.
This is where the Nazis come in (Goodwin's Law at play). While reading this book, I was forced to look at a bunch of child-killing, drunken, war-crime-guilty Nazis and empathize. My father has been known to get in trouble with his peers for saying that there is little difference between us and Nazi Germany, and he doesn't mean that in reference to current politics on either end of the polarized spectrum. He means that human beings are human beings are human beings. The ancient Sumerians are more similar to Nazi Germany are more similar to Tibetan monks are more similar to the founding fathers are more similar to Islamic extremists are more similar to us than they are different.*
We recoil at the thought that "we" could be made of the same stuff as "them." I'm no Nazi. I'm not anything like one of those terrorist bastards. I'm not a fag. I'm not a racist tea-partier. I'm not a dirty hippie. I'm with "us," and "they" are not. Inherent in every evil produced by ethnocentrism is the dehumanizing of the "them," the xeno.
If we are called to a faith and morality based on the love of all people, then the easiest way to get around it is to start de-classifying people. The Nazis were monsters. We will defeat the evildoers. Inhuman atrocities. There is no such thing as an inhuman atrocity. Every atrocity that ever has been, has been entirely human. Evildoers are evil in as much as they are human, and monsters have only ever existed in stories.
This entire thing has been amplified in my mind in light of the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden. I've already made my controversial statements about the death penalty and war, so... I'm not gonna do it again in a context that would lose me the only people who are left reading this thing. The thing I will comment on is a response that a relative of mine (who I love very much and respect quite highly) who posted the following as their status update, "Hope you are NOT enjoying your new home Bin Laden!" No. Just. No. This is not how we ought to respond to the death of another human being. This is how we respond to the destruction of an ogre. This is how we respond t the death of Sauron. This is a fiction.
If we are to truly transcend our morality from simple ethnocentrism, if we are to truly accept the teachings of Christ, then we should never, ever rejoice at the idea of someone's hypothetical eternal damnation. We must acknowledge the humanity in the "them" and by doing so, we must prioritize their humanity as the primary source of the "us." I realize that Osama Bin Laden's death is a symbolic thing. It's not about one man's death, it's about... other stuff. I haven't analyzed it, and I don't really want to. The problem is, we do this all the time. An American Journalist is beaten in Egypt, and we're all over that story. Today, 12 Iraqis died violently and it might make it on the news as the final statistic in a story on "the Arab response" to Bin Laden's death.
I'm not trying to argue that we should all walk around in a haze of depression because of all the horrible acts of humanity, but rather, it seems to me that it is easier for us to ignore much of the evil in the world when it is committed by inhumans and/or against inhumans. Problem being, there's no such thing as an inhuman this side of a Marvel comic book.
It is my firm conviction that true morality, the morality of Christ, is one which views every single person as a neighbor, and every single group as a collection of neighbors. There is no "them," there is no xeno, there is only "us," there is only "ethno." I am made of the same stuff as Hitler, Bin Laden, Mother Teresa, and St. Paul. I am capable of the same kind of horrors as the worst of war-criminals, and I am capable of the same kind of miracles as the Amish community in 2006. I have as just as much in common with the monsters as I do with the saints.
To take this position is to admit the depressing fact that humanity is prone to incredible evil, not due to some metaphysical fluke that produces a bad generation every now and then, but because we are human. If you're still reading this rambling drivel, then you are familiar with my addiction to hope. In this instance, my dad shared some with me this past Saturday.
"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him." Revelation 22:1-3 (Italics mine)
I don't know what form that promise will take. I don't know what that will look like. But I know the intention, and we have seen a glimpse of the heart of God. The healing of the nations.
* If you disagree with this paragraph, call me up and we'll talk it over, I'm already going too long here
Posts
Phew! That was a long'un. I'd really like to take a look at that book this summer, if that's ok with you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I want to discuss this issue in terms of what I've been thinking about in regards to human evolution. Would you be cool with that? Fallenness and redemption: groups and ethnocentrism. (I didn't mean for ethnocentrism to be the parallel to redemption, but it happened.) When Calvin came up with his tenet of total depravity, he was on to something, whether we hold to it or not. Same thing with Augustine and even St. Paul. Sometimes I wish we could remove this from religious language and move to something more humanist, as in, what is the HUMAN response to HUMAN depravity? Of course, even that statement is religious, as I mean (new) human in the first case. And now I'm rambling, too, but that's what you get for such a post. ;)
Not too long. Does not need editing. - Dad
ReplyDelete