Seeds of Wisdom: "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on." -- Golden Rule
Please note: I may not write often, but I make up for it in length <g>
Today's topic: Moral Cloudiness
In reading Shelley aka Burningbird's blog, as I do most days, I came upon this entry. Reading it, and the linked articles - (here, here and here) stirred up some thoughts that have been drifting around in my mind lately.
Shelley's blog entry points to arguments about "moral clarity." What is it? And is it simplistic or complex? I contend that it only exists in the minds of those who claim to possess it. I think it is a myth conjured up by those who need justification for their actions - no matter what those actions are.
IMO, the only morality that counts is the one stated above - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If you are doing anything else - treating anyone in some other manner, be they friend or foe - you have no claim to righteousness. Doesn't matter who did what to whom first. Doesn't matter who stands on the side of "right" - whatever that may be.
So where does that leave us common ordinary folk who give in sometimes to urges for revenge, to a desire to play the hero or the White Knight, to a need to convert everyone else to our point of view?
Lets face folks; we all want to be right. We all want to play on the winning team. I suspect that it's written in the DNA code of every human being. No one wants to be a loser - even the losers. And no one truly believes they are wrong unless they have come to see the light of another "right." So how do we apply the Golden Rule when the issues get cloudy? How do we let go of our burning need to be right?
Don't look at me. I don't have the answers. Sitting on the fence as I often do, I see both sides of nearly every story. From my vantage in the Treetop, I see the whole forest spread out before me, but I can't always see the answers. I have only questions, and I think asking questions is good. I think asking questions is more important than being right - but I could be wrong. <g>
I look again at that need we all seem to feel to be right - to play on the winning team. Take politics for instance. Be you Democrat, or Republican, right wing or left wing, Libertarian or Authoritarian or even independent - whatever position you espouse, you probably believe that your opinion is the only right-minded way of thinking. The others are all idiots, or mislead, or wacky.
Organized religion is the worst of all, IMO.
I was raised Roman Catholic. In that religion, believing that other religions are equal, or even worth looking into is a sin of "indifferentism." That's what we were taught. Don't eat that fruit - you might learn something that we think you're better off not knowing.
Personally, I don't understand how knowledge can be bad. Of course, knowledge makes you think, and most religious leaders would rather that their followers just blindly accept. They call it faith.
Knowledge leads you to ask more questions and if you question, if you seek the truth - you might just find it. I don't think they want that - it threatens their position on a loftier plane.
And most religions are that way. The leaders declare their religion is the one true way to righteousness and some kind of blissful reward in another life. Most religions - whether they admit it or not - look down on those who do not subscribe to the exact same system of belief.
So I ask you - how do you know you are right and everyone else is wrong? And is it really so important?
I think a more important issue to examine is where do you draw the line when one person's right to exist or to "pursue happiness" conflicts with another person's right to do the same.
I offer a few examples ?
You're in a movie theater or a sports arena. There are two armrests - one on either side of your seat. Which one is yours, and which one belongs to the person sitting next to you? I have pondered this question whenever I find myself sitting between two people who have both taken possession of the one on either side of me - leaving me with none.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" dictates that you look around you and make sure that you are not hogging two armrests. Everyone lean to the right or the left - but not both at the same time.
I had a debate recently with a friend of mine. I value freedom over safety. I find all of these post 9/11 searches an affront to my personal freedom. I find the idea of identity cards, and having the government or any other entity tracking my every movement to be very scary indeed.
My friend believes that safety is more important and he, like so many others these days, is willing to surrender freedoms to attain it.
I claim that intrusive searches - beyond a simple pass through a metal detector - at an airport violates my right to protection against illegal search and seizure. I'm willing to allow a reasonable limitation - like the metal detector - but I'm not willing to go much beyond that.
My friend claims that my demanding of my rights violates his right to what he values most - his safety. I claim that living life is a risk. You could get hit by bus while crossing the street. You could slip on rug and break your neck. You could get on the same plane as a terrorist no matter what safety precautions are put in place, short of requiring everyone to travel naked, with no luggage and no in-flight amenities that might be turned into weapons.
So where do reasonable people draw the line? How do I keep my right to freedom while my friend retains his right to safety? In this case, our Golden Rule dictates that I give up my quest for freedom to allow him to have safety, but he must also give up his safety so I can have my freedom. Again - where do you draw the line?
We have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. Perhaps we need safe flights and free flights to meet the needs of all.
To live free requires a large measure of trust that others will adhere to the Golden Rule. I think that deep down most people abide by it. We just have to take our chances or hide deep in a remote cave for the rest of our lives.
Following this train of thought, I come to the question of the Middle East conflict, and the current Blogverse discussion of the incident at SFSU.
The Israeli supporters claim that Israel is right, and that their version of the SFSU incident is the correct one. The Palestinian supporters claim that the Palestinians are right, and that their version of the SFSU incident is the correct one. I support the truth, and claim that it lies somewhere in the middle.
Read both sides with an open mind - here and here. Eliminate the rhetoric from both sides. Eliminate the emotion from both sides. Look at the middle, and see if you can find the truth. It's there somewhere; I'm just not quite sure where it is.
The situation in the Middle East is a similar quandary. There are a number of realities in this situation that no one on either side seems want to accept.
Reality number one: Israel and the Jewish people are not going to go away. The Arab world and any other anti-Israel or anti-Jewish thinking people just have to accept that. They can try to destroy either or both, but anyone who does will either fail, or take the rest of the world down in the attempt.
Reality number two: The issue of the "occupied territories." I shake my head in wonder each time I hear someone say that Israel should withdraw from them. Why?
Should the non-indigenous people living in the US - or Canada too for that matter - withdraw from this land that we fought many nations - including the indigenous people - to acquire?
Should those living in England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland go back to wherever their Celtic or Norse ancestors lived before they invaded that land?
Should the French move out of the Alsace Lorraine region?
I could go on forever and way back into history. Whether it is right or wrong - to the victor belong the spoils - is a fact of life. A reality if you will.
In its brief history, sometimes Israel has been the aggressor, but more often they have been attacked. They won the battles and claimed the land. Unless we change the rules for everyone else - they get to keep it.
Reality number three: The issue of the Palestinian people. Where do they go? How do they live their lives as we all desire to live our lives. Are they less entitled because they have been disenfranchised by what was basically a coin toss by the British when they pulled out of Palestine/Israel in 1948?
If I recall my history correctly, the present day Palestinians are decedents of the Philistines who came to the land that is now Israel from somewhere in the Aegean region during the Late Bronze Age. So where do they belong? Who will take them in? And are they entitled to their own country?
Seems to me that throughout history, if your people want their own country they have to fight for it. Fight to keep it, or fight to take it away from someone else. That's what the Palestinians claim to be doing.
IMO - they are fighting a losing battle if they hope to take the land of Israel back. And they are going about it in a completely wrong way. They need to examine their methods.
They have no armies, no tanks, no airplanes, so for some bizarre reason they think they will win if they blow themselves up in the middle of a group of civilians who may or may not agree with their mission. They blow themselves up, taking many innocent bystanders with them. This makes no sense. It is definitely not the way to win friends and influence people.
They need a leader who will lead, not a leader who will merely allow or egg on suicide bombers. If they want to fight the Israelis and win others to the help them in their plight, they need to think in military terms. Killing civilians accomplishes nothing but making the other side more angry and solidifying their resolution. If you're going to blow something up, why not pick a tank or a fortification of some sort. Soldiers fight soldiers not civilians. Doesn't matter whether or not you wear a uniform or carry a flag, you go after soldiers - not civilians. There has to be some code of ethics no matter what kind of battle you are fighting.
So again - are they entitled to their own country? I have no answer to that question, but I do think they are entitled to live their lives in peace, to pursue happiness in peace. I also think that they are not going to find that in the land that at this moment in history belongs to the Israelis.
I don't think these two peoples can coexist. I don't think the Israelis will ever accept having Palestinians - or anyone who hates them living in their midst. History has taught them that this is not a workable solution. Nor do I think that the Palestinians could ever accept living in a country with a Jewish government.
So how do we resolve all these problems?
I think in the end, John Lennon had the answer - Imagine.
Posted by Cyberkat at May 27, 2002 1:35 PM