COMMENSAL ISSUE 92

Having just joined the SIG and had one newsletter, I am not quite sure yet of the type of subjects you cover, so I enclose a selection of my spiritual addresses, for you to print, in whole or part, in your next newsletter.

Graham T. Dare,
Battersea Spiritualist Church

DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS ?

The Old Testament of the Bible is shared by Christians, Moslems and Jews alike, a third of the world’s population. Not many people believe that the world was created in 6 days, but this may well have been symbolic as no-one would have understood the concept of millions of years at that time. Likewise, the story of Adam and Eve may have been symbolic of millions of years of evolution where the naked ape evolved into a thinking man knowing the difference between right and wrong. The first moral decision that man must have made was whether to be a vegetarian, like the apes or be an omnivore. He chose the latter in the interests of preservation, but it is interesting that the moment he had the brain to decide between right and wrong he chose to kill. The second moral decision came when he was living in communities, and had to defend the community against wild animals at night. His thinking brain told him about possible dangers that had not occurred before, like the neighbouring community attacking him. So, he decided to attack them first to pre-empt this, and so he learnt to gain possessions by killing his fellow man.

The third use of his thinking brain was religion. Leaders decided to conquer other peoples to spread their religion. They also gained the spoils of war for this as well.

The fourth crusade didn’t even bother to go to Jerusalem, but decided to attack the Christian city of Constantinople, which was a softer target, to get their spoils.

The poor people, who were more moral, decided this was wrong, and children decided to conquer Jerusalem themselves. But. they were put on 7 ships, of which 2 sank, and the other 5 landed at a slave port and sold them into slavery, so man had now used his thinking brain to sell his own kind for profit.

The first World War was driven by leaders remote from the horrors of the battlefield, who justified thousands of lives in order to move their front a few yards forward.

Hitler decided to start the second World War for the simple reason that there were too many Germans in too small a country. One solution was to reduce the number of people by eliminating a minority group, who had most of the wealth, and justifying this by convincing his leaders that the Jews were sub-human. The other solution was to expand the boundaries into the fertile mineral-rich European section of Russia (but first defeating Western Europe to avoid having a war on two fronts). Like all the others above, he believed that the end justified the means.

We, in our daily lives, often use the end to justify the means, ie. jumping a red light, speeding, not buying a ticket, etc., to be on time, or telling white lies etc. It is always best to tell the truth, but if the truth is brutal then it should be softened by offering the positive points as well. People will always prefer to be told the truth, and will never trust a person who has been found to tell a white lie. Children first lose their innocence when they first find that a person has told them a white lie, even if for their own good.

Graham Dare

Graham : thanks for these. You supplied 5 brief addresses, of which I have included the first here. I have refrained from printing all five, not because of any lack of merit in them, but because it will be impossible to accommodate adequate feedback on all of them simultaneously within the confines of Commensal. I therefore intend to introduce them one at a time. If you should wish to expand your thoughts in the interim, please feel free to do so. Ideas put forth in one forum may well benefit from being re-stated for the benefit of another.

I’m not sure what to make of the above article ! It doesn’t really seem to be an argument, as such. At least, if it is, it’s open to a number of objections. We might agree with you that, in general, the ends don’t justify the means, but does your essay supply a valid reason for our accepting this assertion ?

There’s lots that’s historically highly dubious. Do you really think that man made a moral decision to become an omnivore ? If so, what evidence do you have for this ? In any case, the apes are not all strict vegetarians (chimpanzees eat meat occasionally). You refer to "the moment he ...". Again, this seems fanciful, as does your designation of pre-emptive strikes as "the second moral decision". Similarly, you suggest that religion is the motivating power behind conquest - have you any evidence that this was the case for the Greeks, Romans, Huns or whoever (Muslims and Crusaders excepted)? Then we suddenly lurch off to the fourth crusade to introduce slavery, as though that was the first time the idea came up. Suggesting that Hitler’s attack on the Jews stemmed from the same lebensraum motif as his attack on Russia trivialises the complex motivations for anti-Semitism.

When you get to the point of your historical narrative, you make a number of highly contentious statements - do people really prefer to be told the truth ? Will they never trust a person who has been found to tell a white lie ? Politicians from Hitler to Clinton (no comparison intended) have made political careers out of or despite telling enormous whoppers, yet people were and are willing to trust them and their popularity ratings soar(ed). People want to be told comfortable things and only become disillusioned when it is no longer possible for them to maintain their delusions. Some children have lost their innocence even before they can speak, at least if their treatment of younger siblings is anything to go by.

I’ve often wanted to stand up in a sermon and shout out "where’s the logic in that ?". I hope I haven’t abused the opportunity and been a bully. As I said earlier, messages have to be tailored to fit their prospective audiences, and yours may need tightening up here or there.

Theo