Wow, sounds evil... but it's not. Really.
Think for a minute about our world, and the wonderful myriad of viewpoints held by different people. Some of their ideals you embrace, and others you undoubtedly reject. Say, for example, that you hold a strong opinion about the war in Iraq, or on abortion, or on one of any number of hot topics. You believe firmly in your side of the issue and would argue in defense of your belief until your last breath. There are probably many people who hold an opinion similar to yours on the topic. However, for every person who agrees with you, there is one who would disagree with you, adamantly arguing that his side is right. With this comes contention and conflict, which is the opposite of peace.
So how would we achieve peace in this instance?
It seems to me that we would have to somehow silence an entire group of people. I can't figure any other way - it's highly unlikely that anyone could genuinely convince half of everyone that they are wrong, and even were the issue to become obsolete, people would still have opinions about it.
That's not peace. It's oppression. Cessation of variation can't be a good thing.
Perhaps we could strive for this instead:
Maybe we could spend less time trying to conform everyone to our own personal ideals and just live by our own ideals.coexist (v) - to exist separately or independently
but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries.
And now, some food for thought:
- It's important to stand up for what we, as individuals, groups or societies, believe in. But to what end? Are the beliefs of any one group more important than the liberties or beliefs of another?
- Think about the most important opinion you hold regarding some issue of social debate. How committed are you to your belief? If mine is the opposite of yours, and I try to convince you I'm right, will you change sides? Now, apply that the other way around. As committed as you are to your belief, the person on the other side is probably equally committed to his.
(I'm done. I'll get off my soapbox now.)
4 comments:
Co-existance is, as you suggest, the best we can hope for. The difficulty arises when people's beliefs actively encourage them to proselytise, forcibly if necessary. There we may have a problem. You can only co-exist with someone who is also willing to co-exist. This is the fundamental problem with pacifism for example.
Much of this argument also only really extends to subjects about which there is a debate; I may argue that capital punishment is unacceptable and produce evidence to back it up, you may disagree and have your own thoughts and evidence. Matters which rely entirely on faith and inherently have no evidence are impossible to discuss in this way since there is no arena within which that dialogue can occur.
In this instance, it is not a question of walking in someone else's shoes to experience their point of view as it is not possible to have that insight unless you too actually believe. I know people who are deeply religious and I can accept that that is what they do and a major part of who they are. What I cannot do is conjour up the experience of religious belief within myself whereas I can understand at a deep level why someone would advocate capital punishment because that is not a matter of faith but of rational thought and argument, we draw different conclusions from the same evidence and experience.
None of this diminishes your call for co-existance but I do think that it is often useful to distinguish between rationally argued beliefs and faith-based beliefs.
Hmmmm. First of all, you ARE awesome! Also one of the most thoughtful and honest people I know. Thanks for being you.
I agree with Mr. Atrocity re: the ability (or inability) to experience another's views. And it's true you need more than one person willing to co-exist in order for co-existence to occur. Some people are unable to agree to disagree, because their beliefs don't allow for that. (or they're just plain too stiff-necked and narrow).
So, in addition to an end to world hunger, you could wish for tolerance. That should end to coexistence, which would bring about peace!
And you could TOO be Miss America!
Mr A,
I agree with you about the difficulty surrounding a belief system which intrinsically calls for its followers to try and "convert" others to their way of thinking. I thought a bit about that issue a little while writing, but was unable to get it into words properly. You did, and quite eloquently. Thanks. :)
I also agree that a distinction between rational or factual based beliefs and faith-based beliefs is important. However, it seems that the most ardently held beliefs are very often intricately intwined with one's religious views, at least on one side of a given topic. It seems like this might make it difficult to truly separate them out. Any thoughts?
I don't think it's really possible to have a true understanding of anyone else's point of view - every part of our life is colored by our experiences, our personalities, and our beliefs. I think what I'm hoping for is a thoughtfulness about others and their ideals. Trying to empathize with a belief completely opposite from one's own is hard at best, and at worst is not attempted at all. For me this brings to mind the US government's current involvement in the Middle East. I think it's ethnocentrism. We wage war, and claim to be fighting for human values and rights, but really we're fighting for American values. Other cultures may not prize freedom above all else, or believe that democracy is the best form of government - we're assuming that they want what we want. Perhaps there could have been a way to help, and still preserve their ideals as their own.
Recently I had a discussion about abortion with a friend of mine who is Catholic. I tried to use what I know about Catholicism as a frame of reference when thinking about what he said to me. I am not Catholic, so my opinons on the subject have been cultivated from other frames of reference. For me personally, I feel that it is important to try to understand why people believe what they do, whether or not I agree with them. I think it helps me to be respectful of others' beliefs.
Mer,
Thanks! =) You're pretty awesome yourself!
Neena,
Tolerance is a good thing, and is completely necessary for anything else we've discussed. Maybe I'll wish for that instead...
I'm so glad that this post opened up some dialogue - a big part of my coursework in school right now involves cultural consideration and thinking about others. It's been on my mind, which is why it's on my blog. Thanks for giving me more to think over!
Ideas, ponderings, comments, disagreements - more dialogue is always welcome!
(Also welcome are comments on my being awesome. Can't say no to those. :) Makes me feel nice. Thanks...)
As I see it, and this must be understood coming from the point of view of a total aetheist, those whose views on a matter such as abortion are mostly informed by their religious teaching fall firmly into faith-based beliefs and are therefore almost impossible to debate.
There's nothing anyone can say that will change the fact that the church says that abortion is sinful and wrong. This precludes discussion; the best you can hope for is to agree to disagree. I find that an unhealthy way for humans to behave since we have this wonderful ability to think and reason and dogma denies that. I would argue it is the only way for us to probe truth and come to decisions about what is right and who we are; we should make our decisions based on experience and our judgement. I am frequently wrong but my belief in reason and experience allows me to change my position when it can be proved to me that I am in error. Unthinking faith denies this.
I do not believe morality as a whole is fixed. If you believe it is, sects such as the Taliban become possible and I deny that they are moral by my understanding of the word, much as I would argue that Thomas Aquinas' statement that heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death" is not moral, though undoubtedly at the time it was believed to be so.
What we understand to be right should be solely influenced by our reasoning, the unthinking adoption of belief based on dogmatic faith denies one of the most powerful faculties the human mind has and that, to my mind, is a denial of what being a human means.
Post a Comment