Theory and Practice
Socrates, though a man of wisdom, was condemned by society. Though his own intuition confirmed his virtuous intentions, he surrendered to the idea that society had thus labelled him and therefore had dominion over his body. Though he could have gone into exile, he held fast to the idea that society’s ethics still bound him to a place and time. Why would someone of such wisdom would make such an absolute sacrifice? One interpretation is: he held that although they could imprison or kill his body, there was a spiritual nature in him that transcended all morals and ethics, and would remain after his death. His surrender could be a testament to his faith and realization in this spiritual reality.
Socrates seemed to hold that as humans we are bound to certain ethics that govern our behavior, that we are bound to uphold the basic rights of our fellow human beings. One example would be the avoidance of contributing to other human being’s suffering. Socrates, proclaims that we must act being cognizant of the social world and the needs of the time we live in. We must act in accordance to an educated standard as to what the ideal society is. In modern times, this might include acting in accordance to definitions as to what the ideal ecosystem, level of biodiversity, and habitable planet is as well. In this framework, society could dictate the adoption of behaviors that you may not agree with or that aren’t adopted from your own sense of choice and creativity. They may be behaviors that seem outright wrong, but encouraged in that they are predicted to result in the overall good.
In this thinking, one will wonder where there is room for individual freedom. Since we are born into a place where some things are already dictated for us is free will, the idea that we get to choose everything about our lives and existence, only a philosophical ideal that is never attainable? In this view, ultimate choice is not available in the realm of form, of material existence. The only way to change the realm of form is through revolution, so good luck.
But religions still offer the possibility of a freedom and happiness, often through an internal or transcendental source. Though they tell you to find health and happiness in seeing your society prosper, of doing society’s work, of serving and benefiting your fellow citizens, the behaviors themselves and their results are not to be depended on as the ultimate source of satisfaction. There is a recognition that ethics constitute the realm of the relative, but true freedom comes from the realm of the ultimate. While religious practitioners practice the relative, they abide in the ultimate, which is the living with the knowing of an internal, transcendental truth of either the Self or a God.
But for a philosopher like Foucault who rejects the idea of an intrinsic truth or human nature, where is freedom found? In his philosophy there is no part of us that is completely separate from either biological, social, or cultural constructs. Then it seems to stand that there is no where to go to for personal, individual liberation, perhaps even no such thing. Perhaps for him, for any hope of liberation requires a reformulation of society.
The absence of a basic intrinsic nature to the human being perhaps has profound implications for our dignity as humans, for the worth of our existence.
The key ingredient in a human being, other the possible existence of an intrinsic nature, is our “world view”. Our conceptions of the world make up our “world view”. Developing our world view is a process of coming to an understanding about our action and our place within the world. It is this world view that gives our material bodies conscience, meaning and purpose. It is the consciousness that knows itself as a social creature, a planetary creature, a biological creature. Though consciousness doesn’t make our heart pump, its what gives our heart, our blood, and the world its meaning, its significance. Our ability to imaginatively understand ourselves, our ability to conceive of our humanness, defines our creative capacity as human beings. When it is at its fullest potential, it is the pulsating center of the metaphor and meaning we perceive in the world.
These conceptions that make up our world view are our tools to situate ourselves in the world, to explain ourselves in the world, and to create and plan our action in the world. Conceptions are the material of communication. When we communicate, we are sharing how we see ourselves within the world, we are sharing what we see in the world, to others. Connection between people happens when another person finds understanding or meaning in my world view, when someone can see what I’m seeing. Through this process, two people co-create a new shared world view (or even disagree with each other’s world views, as long as we understand what makes them different). Living within the world means constant adaptation, refiguring, and communication of a person’s world view.
Redefining and experiencing ourselves anew seems to be core to the art of living for Nietzsche and Foucault. This idea of re-creating of the self, of making the self, of recontexualizing and augmenting of the self recognizes that the way we are become truly human is through our creativity, through our ability to create meaning for ourselves, without the help of any God, without any transcendental Nature.
However, if there is no core human identity, then humans are merely similar to each other and existence is separate. If there is no core divine aspect, then is there any inherent worth to a human being aside from the virtue in his actions, from the beauty he creates in his existence? If there is no transcendental nature, then it stands that a person’s behavior is the only marker you can judge him by, the beauty that he makes of his existence. If this is the case then it implies a great responsibility for ourselves as humans to be in the world in a meaningful way.
But what about those who create only suffering with their life? If a person is only defined by his actions and thoughts and he wrongs you time and time again, then where do you go to forgive him? You can’t say he is basically a good person who makes wrong choices, because his choices are who he is. If there is a person who refuses to communicate anything appreciable about himself and refuses to function by any reasonable standards, society is not going to want him, society is going to decide that there is no place for him within its fold. Society will want to extricate him or kill him. Is there possibility for compassion towards this person? Can you see beauty in a life that sees no beauty in his own?
There will be people in that society who protest to killing him, who argue that he should be given a level of toleration. Now, it seems that to tolerate a person like this, to protect his life, you have to see a divine worth in his existence that is there despite his refusal to create any kind of meaningful social or societal interactions. Or, could the call for toleration not come out of seeing a divine worth, but out of a recognition of his potential worth as a human being, his capacity to be reeducated and become a member of society? What if you find out that this is impossible?
If the call comes from a religious person, this call will be out of a belief in the inherent worth of all life. But then, do you extend this inherent worth to those things which are on the borderlines of the definition of life, such as viruses? What about extending this worth to a bug that is killing the crop to feed a country?
Some religions take their belief that all beings have a Buddha nature to such an end that certain religious practitioners who have been attacked have let themselves be killed, practicing an absolute form of pacificism and holding other’s lives as ideal at all times. If anything, this is a testament to the power of spiritual practice to remove all fear and reaction from the mind.
In the end, my standpoint is that there is no inherent mind or nature to special to human beings that does not exist in animals or plants.
If there is no instrinsic nature to a human being, then toleration comes from a relative system of ethics which takes into account a changing society. If the decision to spare life is only right or wrong in relative terms, then there is an assumption that there is no such thing as ultimate right or wrong judgment on the act of killing.
Since there is no God or absolute system of morals, how then do we look at a “bad” person? As this stands, there is no God or intrinsic nature that dictates ultimate tolerance for human beings who add no joy to life. Though we may say there is no intrinsic nature to the human being, let us not confuse intrinsic nature with intrinsic purpose. In the framework of our ethics, the intrinsic purpose of life is to create the most beautiful existence possible. Therefore, our purpose dictates that we should not look at this deviant human being with anger or hatred, but this does not mean that we just withold any decision or justice on his status as a life in society. Still, though we may not like him, though we want to say he is evil, we must control these judgments in our self, Thus, the way to see a completely deviant human being is with equanimity, with a love that is unconditional. This kind of love is an impersonal love that discerns and casts judgment, that does what is necessary.
We should do our best to uphold an ethics that we agree affords the least suffering and the best possible quality of life to humans, with special emphasis on animals and ecosystems. As for the question of a serial killer in prison, it no longer becomes a religious or spiritual problem, it becomes a social problem. If we cannot reform him to the minimum where he at least causes no harm to other beings and can live in society, we should detain him. But if detaining him is a material impossibility, then killing is acceptabe as a last resort.
