I'm exploring the mentality behind the 'not all men!' impulse, at least the one that comes in good faith rather than being used as a derailing tactic. I have had a lot of male friends, who genuinely do care about the treatment of women in society and honestly do their best to combat sexism and misogyny wherever they find it. And they feel frustrated and angry and alienated. Because even though few statements about the crimes of men are actually prefixed with 'All men do X', the constant stream of stories of men who DO do X (and it is a constant stream, these friends deliberately read feminist blogs and associate with people like me who share articles on these topics), can leave them feeling pretty rotten about their own gender. They HATE the knowledge that the woman crossing the street ahead of them is probably doing so because they are male and thus perceived as a threat. They are deeply uncomfortable with being tarred by the same brush as the murders, rapists and generally bad people they have the misfortune of sharing a gender with.
Now my first response is to say "Boo-hoo! I'm SOOO sorry that hearing about my (and others like me's) lived experience hurts your feelings!" and generally the expression of 'not all men' is met with calls to "Do something about it then!" which is great, but the male friends who confide in me about this already ARE. They call out sexism when they see it, they try to be sensitive to the needs and wishes of the women in their lives. And it can't be fun going through life knowing that a large number of the people around you have to see you as a potential threat. So I set out to try and understand things from their perspective, and try to work out what advice I could honestly give them on the matter.
I can't directly relate, because I'm female, the 'unprivileged' in this scenario. So I tried looking at this from the perspective of privilege. I think of hate crimes against GBLT people, and I feel angry. And somewhat helpless. Because I *AM* doing what I can to support them, and challenge bigotry when I see it. But I can't magically make that stuff go away. I also see the outpouring of anger, the venting etc... which is entirely normal and usually pretty justified. And part of me automatically feels defensive. Because *I* never did anything like that, *I'M* one of the good guys. I'm an ally, I don't want to be tarred with the same brush as those monsters, so part of me wants to say "Not all straight people!" (or 'Not all white people!' if it's a race thing, you see what I mean here?).
But that's not really going to do any good. The people talking here KNOW that not all straight people hate them and wish them harm. They KNOW there are plenty of good straight people out there fighting for their rights. *I* never committed a hate crime, but I'm white, cis and straight, which often puts me in the same category as those who d0. And as a white, cis, straight person, I'm largely protected from those hate crimes in a way my friends who are GBLT are not protected. So I feel guilt by association (because people like me in certain regards are doing terrible things) and guilt that I do benefit from my privilege when others are harmed by that situation.
But who is really helped by me saying "Not all straight people!"? It's not really the GBLT community who are hurting. They shouldn't really be expected to sooth my feelings on the matter. Not to mention it's rarely (though it does happen) the case where a blanket statement is made about ALL straight people. My desire to differentiate myself is there to make ME feel better, it doesn't really help them at all.
So how does one deal with this? I don't have any easy answers. One approach is to remind yourself "This is not about me. I should not try to make it about me." I think the compulsion to declare "Not all ___!" can (though not always) come from a place of genuine frustration, and I don't think the feelings of frustration, anger and helplessness don't matter. They matter and are relevant, but it may be wise to refrain from expressing them to those already suffering directly from the matter. This article explains the concept in far greater detail than I could: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-0407-silk-ring-theory-20130407
You can be an ally and still feel frustrated and angry about the wrongs done by people who share a race/gender/orientation with you. But it would be best if you found a way to express and work through those feelings without requiring those who are directly affected by the issue to hold your hand through it and validate that yes, you are indeed a decent person.
Long story short there can be perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for wanting to declare "Not all men!", but it's virtually never a helpful thing to say, so perhaps find another way to deal with those emotions. Instead of announcing "I don't do that!" perhaps try saying "What CAN I do?"
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Stories and games
I recently got a new RPG (Role-Playing-Game) and have spent the past week or so enjoying it. It's from one of those game developers that make an attempt to work in a coherent narrative, convincing characterisation and above all a good story. This doesn't always work and there are occasions when this falls down badly, but it's always nice to see an attempt.
This lead me to consider games as an art-form, an under-appreciated medium for story-telling. There are a variety of such games out there, from the strictly linear (you're basically only there to move the protagonist around, take over during combat and watch as the story unfolds), to the extensively open-ended (where you choose the character, their personality, background, motives, actions and get a big amount of control over how and in what way the story progresses). I'm less of a fan of the first version, I think other mediums can explore a linear narrative far more easily, for me a game like that needs to have excellent game play as well as story, otherwise I've just spent 12+ hours watching a story unfold that could have been done in less than 2 in a film (or however long it would have taken me to read it in a book). But the second form has a potential that as far as I know is unrivalled in any other medium (save perhaps those 'choose your own adventure' books, but this is far more extensive).
A good story can immerse you in the world of that story, it can make you identify with characters or even project onto them, so that you feel their emotions and experience the events as/with them. I think games provide a very convincing forum for this. After all you aren't just passively watching a story unfold, you must take control, you ARE the hero. You are the one who changes the world. In many such games character customisation is pretty extensive, you can change their features, hair colour/style, eye colour, class, race and talents. You can create a character that looks just like you, or someone you know, or your own created character. You can explore a world as them, learn about a different world, make choices that effect that world. The sort of games I'm talking about here are ones like the Elder Scrolls series, Fallout 3, the Dragon Age games, maybe the Mass Effect games. None get it perfect of course, but all revolve around the idea that YOU are the one driving the story, it's up to you to find interesting things to do, places to go, treasure to find, worlds to save.
Instead of a film that can (usually) only go one way, you have a medium in which a large number of combinations are present. And all can have an effect on the game world, and even on you. Take an example from Dragon Age (origins): You have a dispute between elves and werewolves, you only need one faction to side with you. Do you support the elves and wipe out the werewolves? Do you support the werewolves and wipe out the elves? Do you mediate the dispute to create a peaceful solution? Whatever you choose will determine who is there to help you later in the game. Not to mention you are controlling the story, are you a good, compassionate person who will go out of their way to help people? Or a ruthless dispassionate individual for whom the end justifies the means? In these games you have these options, and what you decide to say and do effects how the story unfolds and how other characters relate to yours.
A well designed game can tell a story in a way no other medium can: it can create a protagonist in whom you are personally invested, characters you can get to know (or flat out ignore), the ability to alter and control how the story unfolds, and ultimately how it ends. Games are obviously not to everyone's tastes, but I honestly feel they are an interesting and under-explored medium for storytelling.
This lead me to consider games as an art-form, an under-appreciated medium for story-telling. There are a variety of such games out there, from the strictly linear (you're basically only there to move the protagonist around, take over during combat and watch as the story unfolds), to the extensively open-ended (where you choose the character, their personality, background, motives, actions and get a big amount of control over how and in what way the story progresses). I'm less of a fan of the first version, I think other mediums can explore a linear narrative far more easily, for me a game like that needs to have excellent game play as well as story, otherwise I've just spent 12+ hours watching a story unfold that could have been done in less than 2 in a film (or however long it would have taken me to read it in a book). But the second form has a potential that as far as I know is unrivalled in any other medium (save perhaps those 'choose your own adventure' books, but this is far more extensive).
A good story can immerse you in the world of that story, it can make you identify with characters or even project onto them, so that you feel their emotions and experience the events as/with them. I think games provide a very convincing forum for this. After all you aren't just passively watching a story unfold, you must take control, you ARE the hero. You are the one who changes the world. In many such games character customisation is pretty extensive, you can change their features, hair colour/style, eye colour, class, race and talents. You can create a character that looks just like you, or someone you know, or your own created character. You can explore a world as them, learn about a different world, make choices that effect that world. The sort of games I'm talking about here are ones like the Elder Scrolls series, Fallout 3, the Dragon Age games, maybe the Mass Effect games. None get it perfect of course, but all revolve around the idea that YOU are the one driving the story, it's up to you to find interesting things to do, places to go, treasure to find, worlds to save.
Instead of a film that can (usually) only go one way, you have a medium in which a large number of combinations are present. And all can have an effect on the game world, and even on you. Take an example from Dragon Age (origins): You have a dispute between elves and werewolves, you only need one faction to side with you. Do you support the elves and wipe out the werewolves? Do you support the werewolves and wipe out the elves? Do you mediate the dispute to create a peaceful solution? Whatever you choose will determine who is there to help you later in the game. Not to mention you are controlling the story, are you a good, compassionate person who will go out of their way to help people? Or a ruthless dispassionate individual for whom the end justifies the means? In these games you have these options, and what you decide to say and do effects how the story unfolds and how other characters relate to yours.
A well designed game can tell a story in a way no other medium can: it can create a protagonist in whom you are personally invested, characters you can get to know (or flat out ignore), the ability to alter and control how the story unfolds, and ultimately how it ends. Games are obviously not to everyone's tastes, but I honestly feel they are an interesting and under-explored medium for storytelling.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Why Atheists are often greeted with hostility.
An angry row recently erupted on a message board I enjoy. For better or worse the topic of faith arose, and it lead me to ponder why many people respond with such hostility when encountering Atheists.
I think part of the problem is that a small minority of Atheists are too forceful about it, they can become just as evangelical, just as eager to proselytise, as the religious fanatics they abhor. Of course even the most mild-mannered of atheists can make some believes uncomfortable, the fact that someone can live without faith in a divine being, can be deeply unsettling for some. But when it comes to the more militant atheists, who act as if only delusional fools and gullible idiots believe in a divine being, well it can ruffle some feathers. Some people feel their faith is in integral part of them, as strong a part of their identity as their gender, race or nationality might be. To have someone come out and say that such a vital component of your identity makes you inferior or stupid, or that it's based on a lie, it can be hurtful. Of course people of faith who are mature (and presumably have a stable faith) can brush off such criticisms, and most mature atheists are able to go about their lives without attacking and belittling others for believing something they don't. The problem is the more vocal minority is what people remember, what people experience, and they set the example that people come to expect.
People choose their beliefs, or lack of them, because they make sense to them. People choose their religion (if they did choose it) because, generally, they feel it's the best religion for them. When something seems so self evident as the rightness of your faith (or lack of it), it can be hard to understand why someone would choose a different path. Why someone would come to a different conclusion than you, even while presented with the exact same facts.
Atheists make (or can make) believes uncomfortable, because their existence demonstrates how a person can live quite happily, quite morally, without the guiding tenants of a faith. Their presence can also raise the question of "What if?" in a believer's mind. "What if they're right?" "What if there really is no God/s?" "What if I'm wrong?" "What if this really is it?" "What if there is nothing more to the world than what we see?" For many these questions can be deeply unsettling, or even downright frightening. Consider the question of death for example: What if there is no life after death? What if you just die, cease to exist? What if you'll never see your loved ones again? Aside from many other things, faith gives comfort, that there is something better, something greater, in this world. The presence of an Atheist can shake that faith, leaving one with deeply uncomfortable questions.
This is not to say that it is right to treat Atheists with hostility. Only that, when the urge arises, we should consider exactly why we feel that way. More often than not it is down to our own insecurities, rather than any slight on the part of the Atheist. And any Atheist that feels they need to validate and legitimise their own views by belittling those of others, really needs to do some growing up. (And thus we should not be upset by them, but smile and nod and wish them well).
When we feel upset or threatened, we should always remember to examine our emotions, and ask ourselves why we feel the way we do. Otherwise we risk hurting those who really did not deserve it, a very unhappy outcome for all concerned.
I think part of the problem is that a small minority of Atheists are too forceful about it, they can become just as evangelical, just as eager to proselytise, as the religious fanatics they abhor. Of course even the most mild-mannered of atheists can make some believes uncomfortable, the fact that someone can live without faith in a divine being, can be deeply unsettling for some. But when it comes to the more militant atheists, who act as if only delusional fools and gullible idiots believe in a divine being, well it can ruffle some feathers. Some people feel their faith is in integral part of them, as strong a part of their identity as their gender, race or nationality might be. To have someone come out and say that such a vital component of your identity makes you inferior or stupid, or that it's based on a lie, it can be hurtful. Of course people of faith who are mature (and presumably have a stable faith) can brush off such criticisms, and most mature atheists are able to go about their lives without attacking and belittling others for believing something they don't. The problem is the more vocal minority is what people remember, what people experience, and they set the example that people come to expect.
People choose their beliefs, or lack of them, because they make sense to them. People choose their religion (if they did choose it) because, generally, they feel it's the best religion for them. When something seems so self evident as the rightness of your faith (or lack of it), it can be hard to understand why someone would choose a different path. Why someone would come to a different conclusion than you, even while presented with the exact same facts.
Atheists make (or can make) believes uncomfortable, because their existence demonstrates how a person can live quite happily, quite morally, without the guiding tenants of a faith. Their presence can also raise the question of "What if?" in a believer's mind. "What if they're right?" "What if there really is no God/s?" "What if I'm wrong?" "What if this really is it?" "What if there is nothing more to the world than what we see?" For many these questions can be deeply unsettling, or even downright frightening. Consider the question of death for example: What if there is no life after death? What if you just die, cease to exist? What if you'll never see your loved ones again? Aside from many other things, faith gives comfort, that there is something better, something greater, in this world. The presence of an Atheist can shake that faith, leaving one with deeply uncomfortable questions.
This is not to say that it is right to treat Atheists with hostility. Only that, when the urge arises, we should consider exactly why we feel that way. More often than not it is down to our own insecurities, rather than any slight on the part of the Atheist. And any Atheist that feels they need to validate and legitimise their own views by belittling those of others, really needs to do some growing up. (And thus we should not be upset by them, but smile and nod and wish them well).
When we feel upset or threatened, we should always remember to examine our emotions, and ask ourselves why we feel the way we do. Otherwise we risk hurting those who really did not deserve it, a very unhappy outcome for all concerned.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Taking advantage
I recently saw the following article featured on Witchvox's 'Wren's nest', where news stories of interest to the Pagan community are posted:
http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_ca11a396-60b3-5ebd-8bd7-ac539d5c2030.html
I read a lot of comments about there being two sides to everything, etc... But what I noticed most was what I term 'victim blaming'. Comments along the lines of "Well this is why you shouldn't let under 18s in, because they aren't mature enough for grown up ritual." Or asking why the girls would stay for these 'cleansing rituals' (with the basic implication that they either wanted it or were stupid). And this attitude bugs me. So it's time for a rant.
Without knowing the people involved or the exact situation I can't come to any firm conclusions, but I will say this:
There are individuals within our community (or claiming to be) who can and do take advantage (emotionally, financially or sexually) of the people under their authority. Any reputable group will do its best to weed out and shun (and where appropriate report to relevant authorities) people like this. But predators can slip through the net. Not to mention there is nothing to stop someone claiming to be a 'high priest' and offering to 'initiate' vulnerable people, regardless of whether they have any actual training or experience.
Also, bare in mind that while it may seem odd to us that a girl would not report an assault and even continue to go to the group, the sort of individual who might take advantage of a vulnerable young woman is often the sort of person who is very good at manipulating people. A lot of victims of sexual assault can go into denial, or simply not recognise what has happened to them. And an abuser is certainly not above using threats of violence to keep their victim quiet, or even make their victim believe it was their fault or nothing happened.
These are things we should all remember, and remain vigilant. Sure WE know that someone who offers to initiate you the day you meet them is probably not trustworthy. Sure WE know that no reputable group will take someone under 18. Sure WE know how a reputable group is supposed to act. But then WE have been in this community for a long while, we're familiar with the protocol. An outsider, especially a naive or vulnerable young person, may know none of this.
Do not allow us to become complacent, or worse start to victim blame. Otherwise we're no better than the individuals within the Catholic Church who stood by while horrific abuses were perpetrated.
(And yes I realise this has become a bit tangential, the case in this news article could be a large number of things, and without knowing the situation or people involved I can't make a judgement on what happened. I just felt the above needed to be said.)
http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_ca11a396-60b3-5ebd-8bd7-ac539d5c2030.html
I read a lot of comments about there being two sides to everything, etc... But what I noticed most was what I term 'victim blaming'. Comments along the lines of "Well this is why you shouldn't let under 18s in, because they aren't mature enough for grown up ritual." Or asking why the girls would stay for these 'cleansing rituals' (with the basic implication that they either wanted it or were stupid). And this attitude bugs me. So it's time for a rant.
Without knowing the people involved or the exact situation I can't come to any firm conclusions, but I will say this:
There are individuals within our community (or claiming to be) who can and do take advantage (emotionally, financially or sexually) of the people under their authority. Any reputable group will do its best to weed out and shun (and where appropriate report to relevant authorities) people like this. But predators can slip through the net. Not to mention there is nothing to stop someone claiming to be a 'high priest' and offering to 'initiate' vulnerable people, regardless of whether they have any actual training or experience.
Also, bare in mind that while it may seem odd to us that a girl would not report an assault and even continue to go to the group, the sort of individual who might take advantage of a vulnerable young woman is often the sort of person who is very good at manipulating people. A lot of victims of sexual assault can go into denial, or simply not recognise what has happened to them. And an abuser is certainly not above using threats of violence to keep their victim quiet, or even make their victim believe it was their fault or nothing happened.
These are things we should all remember, and remain vigilant. Sure WE know that someone who offers to initiate you the day you meet them is probably not trustworthy. Sure WE know that no reputable group will take someone under 18. Sure WE know how a reputable group is supposed to act. But then WE have been in this community for a long while, we're familiar with the protocol. An outsider, especially a naive or vulnerable young person, may know none of this.
Do not allow us to become complacent, or worse start to victim blame. Otherwise we're no better than the individuals within the Catholic Church who stood by while horrific abuses were perpetrated.
(And yes I realise this has become a bit tangential, the case in this news article could be a large number of things, and without knowing the situation or people involved I can't make a judgement on what happened. I just felt the above needed to be said.)
Friday, 9 April 2010
Balancing the scales
Most religions, and nearly all systems of magic, have a control mechanism to keep people from transgressing the group's moral rules. In Christianity this would be the concept of Hell, that someone who does bad things will be punished for them after death. Many neo-Pagans have a concept of Karma that states that what a person does will rebound on them (in Wicca's case, it is believed to come back with momentum). One thing I encountered a lot of while exploring magic, was this rather bizarre idea that if you misused your power (i.e. went round hurting people) it would be taken away from you. I was also often told that people claiming to be both powerful and bad were lying, because of the afore mentioned rule. At the time I believed this. Now I'm really not so sure.
The point is that the world is patently NOT fair, bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad things, and it very rarely seems to balance out. I'm given to understand that the origional concept of Karma states that it's the cumulation of the deeds in all your lives that will balance, so in any individual life it may seem very unbalanced, this makes somewhat more sense to me. But I'm not convinced there really is any rhyme or reason behind how things work.
Perhaps this is because I honestly don't see any reason why things SHOULD balance, other than my desire that they would. Sure I can see how actions have consequences, but I see no reason why these consequences should conform to our belief that things will balance out morally.
But back to my origional topic, and why I think all these systems of 'morality' are flawed. Because it works by scaring or rewarding, it's carrot or stick. Sounds fine, but if you look back to an earlier post of mine on virtue, virtue is only virtue if it was a choice. Not doing something bad because you're afraid you'll be punished, that's not virtue, it's fear. Doing something good because you think you'll be rewarded, is also not virtue. The result is the same of course, and since I doubt a large enough proportion of the population can be convinced to do good for good's sake, then I do feel these systems have a place in our world. But not for me.
The point is that the world is patently NOT fair, bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad things, and it very rarely seems to balance out. I'm given to understand that the origional concept of Karma states that it's the cumulation of the deeds in all your lives that will balance, so in any individual life it may seem very unbalanced, this makes somewhat more sense to me. But I'm not convinced there really is any rhyme or reason behind how things work.
Perhaps this is because I honestly don't see any reason why things SHOULD balance, other than my desire that they would. Sure I can see how actions have consequences, but I see no reason why these consequences should conform to our belief that things will balance out morally.
But back to my origional topic, and why I think all these systems of 'morality' are flawed. Because it works by scaring or rewarding, it's carrot or stick. Sounds fine, but if you look back to an earlier post of mine on virtue, virtue is only virtue if it was a choice. Not doing something bad because you're afraid you'll be punished, that's not virtue, it's fear. Doing something good because you think you'll be rewarded, is also not virtue. The result is the same of course, and since I doubt a large enough proportion of the population can be convinced to do good for good's sake, then I do feel these systems have a place in our world. But not for me.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
True virtue
It's a concept I've been exploring a lot recently, what is virtue? The Romans took the question so far that they personified many virtues (a list of Roman virtues found here: http://www.religioromana.net/virtues.htm ).
Is a person virtuous simply by doing good things? Or by refraining from doing bad things? Is the motive behind an act, as important as the act itself? In my experience the large number of humans tend to inhabit a sort of neutral middle-ground between 'good' and 'evil' (both abstract concepts I'll explore later), generally following the path of least resistance. So most people will do good things if it's easy, and most will do relatively bad things if it's the easiest way. It generally takes a great strength of will do actually break free of this. To be truly virtuous or wicked then actually requires a choice. A conscious decision. And generally speaking to be truly virtuous or wicked requires a great deal of effort. For example it's fairly easy to drop a few coins in a charity box when you walk passed, but takes much more effort to see a cause, research it, then join the organisation, setting aside your time, money and energy towards forwarding that cause.
So virtue, I would argue, is only virtue if you have a choice. To decide that you wish to do something good, to make a donation to a charity (for example), is virtuous. But if you had no say in the matter, and, for example, the money was simply taken from your account each month without your consent, that would not make you virtuous, since the thing would be done whether you wished it to be or not.
This leaves open the question however, 'What if there are truly good/evil people out there, who do good/evil unthinkingly and automatically?' I would argue that if a person did exist, who did good/evil things because they were naturally a good/evil person, and couldn't actually do any different, that perhaps this might not class as true virtue or wickedness at all. We do not blame the lion for pouncing on (and killing) it's pray, it does what it needs to do to survive, following it's nature. Perhaps the aforementioned hypothetical being should be classed in a similar way as most animals are. As simply following their nature.
Of course the good or evil is still done, so the net result is the same whether an individual had a choice in the matter or not. So it all comes back to the question: Does the motivation behind an act, mean more than the act itself? I would argue that it does. If you kill someone because they were going to kill you if you didn't, it is legally classed as self defence, and thus you are unlikely to be jailed for it. If you kill them because you didn't like the t-shirt they were wearing, you are clearly insane and will probably be locked in a mental hospital for a long while. If you kill a person because they were in your way or you didn't like the colour of their skin, it's classed as murder and you will likely be jailed for it. In all three examples the net result is the same, a dead person. And yet few would argue that the situations were the same. Self defence is a very different thing to murder, so clearly one's motivation is just as important as the result.
Is a person virtuous simply by doing good things? Or by refraining from doing bad things? Is the motive behind an act, as important as the act itself? In my experience the large number of humans tend to inhabit a sort of neutral middle-ground between 'good' and 'evil' (both abstract concepts I'll explore later), generally following the path of least resistance. So most people will do good things if it's easy, and most will do relatively bad things if it's the easiest way. It generally takes a great strength of will do actually break free of this. To be truly virtuous or wicked then actually requires a choice. A conscious decision. And generally speaking to be truly virtuous or wicked requires a great deal of effort. For example it's fairly easy to drop a few coins in a charity box when you walk passed, but takes much more effort to see a cause, research it, then join the organisation, setting aside your time, money and energy towards forwarding that cause.
So virtue, I would argue, is only virtue if you have a choice. To decide that you wish to do something good, to make a donation to a charity (for example), is virtuous. But if you had no say in the matter, and, for example, the money was simply taken from your account each month without your consent, that would not make you virtuous, since the thing would be done whether you wished it to be or not.
This leaves open the question however, 'What if there are truly good/evil people out there, who do good/evil unthinkingly and automatically?' I would argue that if a person did exist, who did good/evil things because they were naturally a good/evil person, and couldn't actually do any different, that perhaps this might not class as true virtue or wickedness at all. We do not blame the lion for pouncing on (and killing) it's pray, it does what it needs to do to survive, following it's nature. Perhaps the aforementioned hypothetical being should be classed in a similar way as most animals are. As simply following their nature.
Of course the good or evil is still done, so the net result is the same whether an individual had a choice in the matter or not. So it all comes back to the question: Does the motivation behind an act, mean more than the act itself? I would argue that it does. If you kill someone because they were going to kill you if you didn't, it is legally classed as self defence, and thus you are unlikely to be jailed for it. If you kill them because you didn't like the t-shirt they were wearing, you are clearly insane and will probably be locked in a mental hospital for a long while. If you kill a person because they were in your way or you didn't like the colour of their skin, it's classed as murder and you will likely be jailed for it. In all three examples the net result is the same, a dead person. And yet few would argue that the situations were the same. Self defence is a very different thing to murder, so clearly one's motivation is just as important as the result.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
The nature of balance
"The essence of balance is detachment.
To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance,
After which no action can be trusted.
Our burden is not for the dependant of spirit. "
-Mayar, Third Keeper.
That was a quote, from a cut-scene of a computer game (Thief: The Dark Project), I try to avoid quoting computer games when trying to make a point, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception. This is because it so aptly sums up the nature of balance. It's so often forgotten in debate and argument. If asked, most people would say they are aware that emotion can cloud judgement, and that once you become passionate about a subject, it is often hard to think objectively. But few really internalise this message.
It's something I've only recently come to terms with myself. There are many emotive topics on which I have strong views. I also enjoy debating (you might notice from some of the topics I choose to blog about). One thing I often noticed when debating was that most people (I'm ashamed to say, myself included) would often only look at evidence that supported their own position, and if looking at evidence that refutes that position, do so only in a way that looks for fault. I learnt then that in order to be able to fully understand a debate, one must look, objectively, at both sides, no matter how strongly one may disagree with one side.
Because, as my opening quote so aptly states, once you embrace a cause (either in favour or in opposition), you lose your balance. Once you lose your balance all action is to a certain degree suspect. Of course emotion is an important factor when making moral decisions, but it should never be allowed to fully over take logic and reason. It is always worth considering one's motives when debating or acting.
This is why I now try to avoid debating on topics I feel strongly about, because I know that the strength of my feeling is very likely to cloud my judgement, and it takes a great strength of will for me to force myself to examine, objectively, the evidence supporting both sides.
Balance is an ideal, and thus may never be fully achievable (or perhaps even desirable), but our balance, or lack of it, is always worth taking into consideration, whenever we make a choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
