From Meditation 1, let us assume that we have a drive to live. What confuses me is what that desire brings with it — specifically the value of cruelty. Let me explain myself. I don’t deny that scarcity exists, so there will likely always be some conflict. I am not religious, but having grown up with a religious grandfather, I am reminded of the biblical quote “The poor will always be with you.” I don’t know the exact context, but I remember interpreting it as the fact that there will always be inequality; the question is how we respond to it. In any case, there will always be the weak and there will always be the strong. We see a similar thing in the animal world. Most group-oriented animals have well-established pecking orders and strict hierarchies, just like humans did.
I remember taking a political philosophy class in my freshman year of college where we discussed the origins of Christianity and its potentially unfaithful start. We read Nietzsche, who essentially suggested that the weak created Christianity to escape their unequivocal domination. In a world where the strong ruled, the only way to fight back was to restructure society such that the weak were protected. And what better way to do that than create mass frenzy about a religion that centered around caring for the weak?
Indeed, what is interesting to me is that I agree with great philosophers like Rawls who have asserted that we all have an equal moral worth, and that all of our natural advantages are essentially undeserved. I think what is almost less clear to me is how we accommodate those disadvantages. Many great thinkers have attempted to solve this problem, and I agree it is of the utmost importance. One strain of thought that I do find fascinating is whether in doing so, we are upending a sort of natural order of things. Clearly, all across the animal kingdom we see no such efforts towards equality. Does the difference boil down to our faculties, as I discussed just one meditation earlier? What is it that gives humans an equal moral worth, and not animals? These are all questions that I do not know the answer to.
Let me go back to my assertion about cruelty and scarcity. Now, I don’t deny that animals will bully each other. As I said, they have strict hierarchies and pecking orders. Male animals frequently force female animals to reproduce. What I still hold, however, is that there is something different about human cruelty. I think the difference here is that humans are, as I briefly touched on, moral creatures. The animal picks on the weak to keep their place so that they can eat, and the animal coerces females to ensure the survival of their species — they mate with the intent of having offspring. I cannot say the same about human sexual assault, which seems to be about power, and other cruel acts which have no real survival justification. And, even if these acts were for the good of survival, I still would call them cruel by virtue of our moral capacities. It seems, then, that for whatever reason, our unique desire to live brings with it a stroke of malice.
I have long wondered where this malice comes from. Is it rooted in jealousy? Or arrogance? Throughout history we have seen cases of anguish brought on by despicable goals. Countess literatures have written about humanity’s susceptibility to power. What’s interesting, though, is that we also seem to be particularly susceptible to manipulation. You think of huge movements that have left people quite simply brainwashed. It seems to me like in cases like this, we have been reverted back to existence rather than life.
I will pick up on this matter more, but I have run out of time here.
Leave a comment