Blog
01.February 2001 - 00:00
After the Nightmare
Some years ago I read an unusual story about an English family whose three children suffered from a rare hereditary disease. Both healthy parents had carried the same hereditary gene which their offspring inherited from each parent and caused them not to feel any pain. For a silly moment I thought ”What a marvellous sickness”.
A second later I realised, of course. The fact that these children didn't feel any pain didn't make them invulnerable. On the contrary, it exposed them to a continuous deadly peril. Because there was no pain to warn them, the children could go too near a hot fireplace and burn themselves or break their limbs in boisterous play. They had already injured themselves and crippled each other and none of them were expected to reach adulthood.
In addition to the sense of physical pain, human beings are supposed to have a sense of spiritual pain. Some might call it a conscience and others a super ego, but the idea is the same: to warn of boundaries, to prevent human beings from hurting themselves and others.
All the increasing news of mindless violence has made me wonder whether the whole of our society could become sick and no longer be able to feel the warning pains while it destroys itself, its very life. Could a collective feeling of pain disappear, become numb? If so, all of us would be the losers.
Almost everyone is able to value the freedom our Western society and culture guarantees. Since the rise of liberalism our societies have been resolutely built on the principle of individual freedom. Politicians have been quite unanimous: if we want to build a society where people are content, freedom is much more efficient than force.
But its worth thinking about what ethical foundations are assumed when we have freedom in a community. How can they be built and maintained? And is it still being achieved?
This was discussed some years ago by philosophy lecturer, Sirkku Hellsten, in her Finnish book Oikeutta ilman kohtuutta (Justice without Equity). In that brilliant work she wondered why the values which originally gave the liberal theory of society its strength and flexibility now seem to be turning against society itself. This happens when there is no commitment to anything. The ideal of impartiality quenches ethical discussion. The concept of tolerance, for example, turns upside down if it is thought that it is achieved through moral indifference. For that, in turn, leads to intolerance.
I write all this because one morning I woke up with a nightmarish thought. I realised how short a step it is from an extremely free society to an extremely controlled one. If freedom is not accompanied by an inbuilt sense of responsibility, it is clear that the only guarantee of a peaceful society is continuous, all embracing, total control. We already have the necessary technology.
Some years ago I read an unusual story about an English family whose three children suffered from a rare hereditary disease. Both healthy parents had carried the same hereditary gene which their offspring inherited from each parent and caused them not to feel any pain. For a silly moment I thought ”What a marvellous sickness”.
A second later I realised, of course. The fact that these children didn't feel any pain didn't make them invulnerable. On the contrary, it exposed them to a continuous deadly peril. Because there was no pain to warn them, the children could go too near a hot fireplace and burn themselves or break their limbs in boisterous play. They had already injured themselves and crippled each other and none of them were expected to reach adulthood.
In addition to the sense of physical pain, human beings are supposed to have a sense of spiritual pain. Some might call it a conscience and others a super ego, but the idea is the same: to warn of boundaries, to prevent human beings from hurting themselves and others.
All the increasing news of mindless violence has made me wonder whether the whole of our society could become sick and no longer be able to feel the warning pains while it destroys itself, its very life. Could a collective feeling of pain disappear, become numb? If so, all of us would be the losers.
Almost everyone is able to value the freedom our Western society and culture guarantees. Since the rise of liberalism our societies have been resolutely built on the principle of individual freedom. Politicians have been quite unanimous: if we want to build a society where people are content, freedom is much more efficient than force.
But its worth thinking about what ethical foundations are assumed when we have freedom in a community. How can they be built and maintained? And is it still being achieved?
This was discussed some years ago by philosophy lecturer, Sirkku Hellsten, in her Finnish book Oikeutta ilman kohtuutta (Justice without Equity). In that brilliant work she wondered why the values which originally gave the liberal theory of society its strength and flexibility now seem to be turning against society itself. This happens when there is no commitment to anything. The ideal of impartiality quenches ethical discussion. The concept of tolerance, for example, turns upside down if it is thought that it is achieved through moral indifference. For that, in turn, leads to intolerance.
I write all this because one morning I woke up with a nightmarish thought. I realised how short a step it is from an extremely free society to an extremely controlled one. If freedom is not accompanied by an inbuilt sense of responsibility, it is clear that the only guarantee of a peaceful society is continuous, all embracing, total control. We already have the necessary technology.