You can tell a lot about a person by what they think of the weak and powerless person. I have edited this half a dozen times already, but I think it will be a work in progress for a long time yet. I really want each one of us to consider how we think the lower strata of society should be treated, and I hope thinking through it will open all our eyes to blind spots in our belief system. I talk a lot in my writings about the philosophy of domination and coersion. It is an attitude that is gaining momentum in the world today, but I don't think it will have the final say in history.
People who believe in domination use power and money to push down against those who threaten their ability to obtain more power and money. You can note their belief in domination by their attitude that says "The bottom class of society deserve what they get so they should be used as slaves and guinea pigs. They are expendable by-products of our economic system, and it is unfortunate that their demise makes us look so bad." This philosophy isn't based on any reasonable belief system, and I am not sure it is compatible with practical ethics, although you hear American's parrot these ideas all too often.
Humanists or Agnostics believe that the weak may have hidden or latent benefits to society and are slow to marginalize them because our society is founded on compassion. America is all about second chances, so relegating the lower class to slavery is anathema to most people here, whether they have a firmly established belief system or not.
In a similar fashion, Christians believe the weakest members of society have intrinsic and extrinsic value because their existence brings out the best in human beings. Christian belief in an upside down kingdom includes the protection of the innocent and weak, who often have hidden strengths. If you look at what feeds the strict philosophy of domination and coersion in this present world, it is never a desire to protect the innocent and weak.
With a little consideration, it can be proven that an atheistic belief and confidence in natural selection/survival of the fittest is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of domination, which is survival of those in power by use of the biggest weapon. An atheist believes that there are natural principles that weed out the weakest member of a given group, and domination by those with power and money would thwart the natural selection process because those who obtain power and money are not those most capable of handling it appropriately. The current global economic condition has already proven this true.
Another reason the philosophy of domination and coersion is contrary to atheism is because atheistic thought often uses the rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Domination of others contradicts this rule, which is the basis of many religious belief systems, as well.
To clarify further, survival of the biggest weapon does not speak to the process of legitimate discipline or self-defense, which fits well with any other belief system. But is a philosophy of domination and coersion capable of such coexistence? I say it clashes with any belief other than exalting power and money as God, and the current descent into a totally counter-productive anarchy with domination as the ruling philosophy is foreign to us Americans and an offensive to our democratic principles. If your belief system is healthy, you will protect the innocent and weak from domination and coersion, which is what makes the United States of America, and our democratic republic worthy of fierce loyalty; and makes terrorism and fascism the enemies of every one of our citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment