That was the philosophy question in the final assessment for my OU course in the humanities. Now I know that I'm not supposed to post these TMA's onto my blog but I'll get away with this, mainly because I posted it off without copying it and now I've only got a vague recollection about what I actually wrote. So let's consider - what do we mean, first of all, by sacred. I always like to get back to basics with these things so let's take the dictionary definition first:
sacred a. 1. Consecrated or held especially acceptable to a deity, dedicated or reserved or appropriated to some person or purpose; made holy by religious association, hallowed...
I believe that it is in humankind's instincts to hold human life as sacred and I would extract from that dictionary definition the part - dedicated or reserved to some person or purpose. It seems to me that most people hold human life to be sacred whether or not they believe in a deity. So what, you might ask, is the purpose to which I think human life is dedicated to? It is simple self-preservation.
We studied early on in the course the philosopher Rousseau and he spoke about society obeying the general will. Most people would see sense in this idea as the alternative to rule by consent is anarchy, and in a state of anarchy we are at peril. So we live in what we commonly call society. In most cases this is based on small groups such as the family, then the neighbourhood, the town, the province and then the nation. We expand this co-operative network by forming alliances, commonwealths etc. and finally a body such as the United Nations.
The link here is that we wish to protect, firstly ourselves, then our family, then out neighbours and countrymen, and then our allies and international neighbours. Our instinct for self-preservation is not therefore just a narrow, selfish impulse. By holding other human life to be sacred we protect ourselves. That is society. Maggie Thatcher tried to tell us different:
And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. (M. Thatcher 1987)
If we look after our families and our neighbours we live in a social world, a society. The poor old cunt didn't know what she was saying. Of course there are instances of killing but these are mercifully few compared to the billions of lives being led by people in harmony with one another. Making war is not our natural instinct, making love is. All human life is sacred and we don't need a religion to make it so. And that is not to put religion down as such. Often religion is nothing more than unscrupulous people seeking power over others but it can be a force for good, and I believe that this is so when it is directed inwards. When a person studies his own inner self, call it the soul if you like, then he is more able to see the value of others and to cherish the beauty and diversity of his fellow humans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hear, hear!! :-D
I kept thinking about your post during the day yesterday -- I guess M. Thatcher is not and never has been human. That's probably why she's not got a f**king clue as to what human life is all about.
I hope this doesn't sound as if I'm trying to come up with an excuse for Thatcher -- I am merely seeking an explanation because I have nothing in common with this woman, yet I want to try to understand her and her views and her actions.....
Gosh, I need some coffee......!
I think the only thing we need to understand about Maggie Thatcher was that she was a heartless old bitch who thought she knew what was best for the rest of us. Her self-belief was in fact delusional.
With the risk of sounding slighty repetetive: hear, hear!*
_____________
* It's late. I'm tired.
"Making war is not our natural instinct, making love is."
I can't help wondering whether you have ever read a single history book in your life?
David, My point was that mankind strives to live in society for the purpose of self preservation and to propagate the species. Human history is of course riven with wars and strife but yet this does not occupy the vast majority of people. Wars are created and driven by the elite and powerful few, administered by a larger number of politicians and bureaucrats, and executed by a yet larger number of soldiers. These as still relatively few. They may claim to represent the people, or to defend the people, but they are not the people. The world is by and large a peaceful place. If it were not then there would be no civilisation, no great cities, no culture, no art, no humanity. Making war may be the natural instinct of some but they are insignificant in relation to the broad mass of humanity whose natural instinct is to live in harmony.
Mrs Thatcher might have been wrong to say that 'society' does not exist. However, many first rate thinkers agree with her view. For instance, Karl Popper writes that: '... most of the objects of social science, if not them all, are abstract objects: they are theoretical constructions. (Even "the war" or "the army" are abstract concepts, strange though this may sound to some. What is concrete is the many who are killed; or the men and women in uniform, etc.)'. (The Poverty of Historicism, 1961, p. 135)
Like Mrs Thatcher, Popper would have said that society does not exist.
I do not agree with this. Nonetheless, in order to refute the position, you need to use arguments. The hurling of childishly obscene insults at Mrs Thatcher is no subsitute for an argument.
You fall well below your usual standard here.
Post a Comment