Number 93 : July 1998 |
Re : Art (C92/9). Is not John Stubbings perhaps confusing "an art" with "art"? I suppose then one could consider torture etc. as "an art" without offending the sensibilities. There is even an art in making a phone call.
Killing (C92/13); Until our society changes its attitude with respect to children and takes away the responsibility for them from the producers there will always be people who, for one reason or another, justified or not, will want to terminate a pregnancy. If on the other hand all children produced were the property of the state the problem would not arise; but then again who would want to live in a "1984" society ? As for compulsory sterilisation this is practised in China - on the men ! Once a man has fathered 2 children (I think) he is compulsorily sterilised by the State as a means of population control. The Western world condemns this as a deprivation of human rights. The problem seems to be that too many people want their rights without the attendant responsibility.
Apropos of that and crime and punishment I have often thought that crime is a refusal to accept the rules of society. Societies are formed for mutual benefit and protection and to gain those benefits one has to observe certain behaviour rules so that the other members of the society can also benefit. People who commit crimes are therefore not accepting the rules so perhaps there should be a place where they could be banished to so that they could form their own society and rules. Anyone know of a spare uninhabited planet? Australia was a failure simply because the authorities still tried to maintain their social rules instead of letting the transportees get on with it. I wonder what kind of place it would have turned out to be if they had.
Graham Dare (C92/20) : I think Graham is imputing far too much sophistication in his survey of history. As I see it man being curious probably tasted some flesh and decided he liked it. (In this I am reminded of Lamb's explanation for the existence of roast pork in "Elia"). As for wars with neighbours I think that it was far more likely that having been in a war there was all sorts of goodies lying around afterwards that he just decided to appropriate. With religion I think that maybe Graham has put the cart before the horse. I feel that it is far more likely that Leaders wanted to do a bit of plundering and pillaging so they whipped up the enthusiasm of the army by appealing to religion. As for the World Wars, the reasons for them are far more complex than lebensraum. Economic and social factors played a very important part. In fact I seem to remember reading somewhere that a leading economist felt that when certain economic conditions prevailed war was inevitable. As for telling the truth always - a nice conceit but hardly workable unless you want to be a society of one. Surely diplomacy and even a little flattery are the lubricants that smooth the progress of society. Even Jesus was not above using a bit of diplomacy at times. He never did give a straight answer to the man who asked about paying Roman taxes but neatly evaded the trap that was set for him. Not a lie perhaps but surely an evasion. The Africans here have a nice way of avoiding conflicts. They tell a person what they think he wants to hear. Furthermore, is always telling the truth always morally justified ? Are there not occasions where to tell the full unmitigated truth would have such direful consequences that there is no way that truthfulness could be justified ?
Finally, what is truth? It has been argued more than once that truth is subjective and not absolute so that your truth and mine could be totally different. Religion is one place where that applies. What is a truth to a Christian is lies to a Muslim or a Jew. What is truth to a Catholic is not necessarily so to a Protestant.
Rick (C92/25) : When it comes to statistics I always refer to Mark Twain:- There's lies, damn lies, and bloody statistics!
John Neary
John : I expect your proposals on criminal disposal will feature at the Mensa at Braziers weekend in September !
Your "what is truth" question is interesting, if not original (!). I used to belong to a small, extreme (well, extremely small, any way !) Protestant sect called The Bereans (see Acts 17:10-11) that referred to its message as "This Truth". As a world-view (and it wasn’t that wacky, else I wouldn’t have gone along with it !) it was very unlikely to be true in any objective sense, else why did so few people believe it ? Actually, this was part of the fascination, being part of an exclusive "elect". Anyway, "Truth" seems to be used in two senses; one, an objective, truth-functional sense; the other as a term for a body of doctrine that its adherents hope to be true (if they knew or understood what it was they’re supposed to believe - another muddling factor).
Theo