How To Get Along

You know that song: "Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." We can if we want. Something Jesus might have said, right? Don't worry, I'm not suggesting you should. Really, I just thought I'd tell you what I've been up to recently.

I've been trying to do things a bit differently, you see. Trying a different approach. Because I was kinda down in the dumps and got to thinking about life, the universe and... well... everything, really.

Humans - that's us (I presume you're human. If you're not, please say hi. I've never met a non-human who can read before) - live in societies. Societies have ideas of right and wrong. Those ideas of right and wrong vary between different societies (cultures, if you like). Not only that but they also vary with the progression of time. With all these ideas of right and wrong, it's not surprising we get a bit confused. 

During the recent riots in England, a friend posted on facebook how furious she was, how these people were acting like thugs and didn't deserve any sympathy.

"Every person from childhood 'knows' in their gut what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is ok and what is not ok." She said.

We really feel strongly about this, don't we? Without right and wrong, the foundations of moral order crumble, we fear.

The problem is - here comes a big statement - every conflict in the world, big or small, is created by conflicting ideas of right and wrong. You cannot have a conflict unless you have two sides who believe in their own righteousness.

It's always the righteous who go to war.


So how about this: try, for a second or two... well, make it an hour... half an hour? For moment, then, imagine there is no right and wrong. In other words: take all your ideas of right and wrong and let them go.

It means there's no such thing as justice. And the concept of justice is pretty ridiculous, if you think about it. When I hear people reported on the news saying they just 'want justice to be done' I now find myself wondering 'what do they mean?'

Are you still imaging there's no right and wrong? Good. Have you suddenly turned into a serial killer? I thought not.

So how is this of use to you? Well, whilst you're in this no right or wrong zone, it makes it harder for you to get into conflicts. Even internal ones! Why? Because you have absolutely no justification to back you up.

"But that doesn't stop people from telling me I'm wrong." No, but you don't have to believe them. I think it makes a difference. A big difference.

We tend to get angry when we're hurt. And we get hurt when people criticise us. We get all self-righteous and try to defend ourselves. But what about if we don't believe in their 'wrong'. Their criticism is now meaningless. We've turned their attack into nothing more than an opinion.

Even those internal conflicts. The ones that make you flog yourself with relentless guilt. You can let those go too. You don't have to feel guilt any longer, because it's impossible for you to have done something 'wrong'.

I knew this idea wasn't going to be popular, but I thought I'd say it anyway. I know you're all seething with a need for justice. "You're giving people a license to act badly!" I hear you rage. Almost certainly in unison.

In a sense, I am. Giving people a license to act 'badly' (how is it possible to judge?) diffuses a whole lot of conflict. And it might just help people to get along.

A Mind-Bending Thriller...

Third Contact on Facebook

Finally

This is the kinda church for me: No afterlife, no god, no Jesus (possibly).

Third Contact - NEW Trailer!

What's the Deal with Religion?

So, how does it work? Are we to take any nonsense seriously if enough people believe in it? Or should all nonsense be treated equally, regardless of the number of followers?

I have a bit of a problem with religious 'education'. Religions are myths. Should myths have their own subject at school? Are they not part of English and History? No, because politically religion has to be taken seriously. The problem is, it isn't taught as fiction. It has to be slanted, at the very least, in a way that suggests there's a real possibility it might be true.

I'm with people that say "If you can treat your nonsense as a serious subject, we should treat all nonsense seriously."

Morality in Society Without Religion

I was sitting on the tube and I saw someone reading a newspaper with a headline which went something like "...Possible for Morality in Society Without Religion". I couldn't see the whole headline so I don't know if it was for or against the idea, but whichever way the article went it was an opinion held by Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks.

Is it possible to have morality in society without religion? I think this is a silly question. Can you name a society that doesn't have a set of moral principles? Nope. Society IS morality. In fact, the greater part of society is created by a common consensus on what is correct or incorrect behaviour within it.

It seems that philosophers and leaders have debated the need for belief in a higher authority or the consequence will be 'anything goes'. There's no confusion here. You cannot have society without there being a pressure exerted by that society on your behaviour.

I don't believe in gods. So why don't I behave without restriction? Obviously, because I have been conditioned by society to behave in an acceptable way.

Values change. 50 years ago in the UK it was unacceptable to have sex with someone of the same gender and so it was against the law. It was mostly heterosexual Christians who found it unacceptable and, as they formed the majority of British society, what they said went. We're also talking about a time when it was generally unacceptable to have 'mixed race' marriages. Those pressures are still in our society now, just less strong. There's also pressures in the other direction - there's political and social pressure to accept these old taboos.

If you're looking for some kind of set of unshakeable set of 'commandments', well they don't exist. Not even for religious people. I know the 10 Commandments are set in stone, but only the words, not the way they're interpreted.

I found an old article by Lord Sacks on the subject. He says "You don’t have to be religious to fight for justice, practise compassion, care about the poor and homeless or jump into the sea to save a drowning child." He's already making assumptions on what is morally acceptable behaviour for our society. It's an 'everybody knows' moral code. I agree that 'morality... is the result of social practice, honed and refined over many centuries' but 'The West was shaped by what today we call the Judaeo-Christian tradition' is another folklore assumption.

How much did society change after pagan Europeans were converted to Christianity? Roman historians will tell you about the savage barbarians who were 'civilised' by Roman influence. But we have to remember those 'civilised' Romans used to watch people hack lumps out of each other for Saturday afternoon entertainment.

Would pagan Europeans have converted to Christianity if their moral code was not already fairly close? Clearly, you cannot create a society based on selfish behaviour. The basis of any society is harmony. The best way to create harmony is compromise and sacrifice of the self in service of the group as a whole. The Christianity myth is based on this premise - one man/god sacrifices himself for the sake of the community.

It seems obvious to me, religions are chosen by a society if they reflect the moral behaviour they approve of. Religion is like a moral behaviour package with a big daddy figure to act as the eternal parent/enforcer. Religion doesn't provide morality, it just helps to increase the pressure on your society to behave in the way you wish.

I'm Determined to Tell You About Determinism

I have these moments where I think I've discovered something new. Its usually something philosophical.

It was some time ago on this blog that I put forward the idea we are not in any way responsible for our actions (I can't remember which post it was and I can't be bothered to find it - I'm lazy like that). At the time, someone commented this was not a new idea as a lawyer had successfully argued this in a court in Chicago in 1924.

So it wasn't new. But why did nobody tell me about it? Isn't this rather important? That none of us are ultimately responsible for what we do. That the system of punishment and the habit of blame are based on an illogical premise. Isn't this the first thing you should be taught at school?

But wait. If this idea is old news - we've been there, done it and bought the bus ticket to predetermined liberation - why is just about everyone still acting as if blame and guilt are very much alive and well (and living in Chicago, most likely)?

I had to come up with the idea on my own because it seems to be out of favour and not talked about at all in polite circles (I avoid rude circles). And as it happens, it helped me out of deep deep depression (yeah, I realised the illogicality of beating myself up for doing 'bad' things - what else could I have done but act as me?), so it would have been nice if the idea had at least been run past me at some point in the previous 40 years of my life.

I've recently been chatting to a few friends about the idea. People are curious. "What is it?" they inquire.

OK. This idea questions what choice really is. Imagine you don't like strawberries (those of you who actually don't like strawberries, just relax). Imagine I now offer you a choice of ice cream flavours: vanilla and strawberry. Which one will you 'choose'? Most people happily answer 'vanilla'. No choice.

But I still had a choice, most people insist. You didn't choose not to like strawberries and that's what made you pick vanilla. For some reason - maybe you ate a bad one as a child, maybe you gorged on strawberries once and made yourself sick or maybe you have no idea why you don't like strawberries - the desire not to eat strawberries was created back somewhere in your history.

"But I still made a choice (you people are very stubborn) I could have chosen the strawberry ice-cream if I'd wanted to."

If you'd wanted to. Who determines what you want?

"I do. I decide what I want in life. It was me who decided to become a lawyer and it was me who decided to study hard until I eventually became one. Nobody forced me to do this."

Now I'm like an annoying child: Why did you want to be a lawyer and not, say, a doctor or a plumber?

"I find law more interesting. I was also crap at biology. And I'd rather do law than deal with peoples' sewage all day."

Why? I know this is irritating, but it has a point.

The point is, keep asking why you did the things you did and at the root of it is something predetermined. Upbringing, culture, society, genetics, emotions and desires (pre-programmed chemical reactions which provide an advantage to our survival as primates), chance events or meetings.

"I wanted to be a lawyer. I could have been a doctor or a plumber but I chose law. It was my choice."

Let's try a different angle. We are, essentially, choice-making machines. Like your computer, for example. It makes choices too. If you have anti-virus software installed, it chooses which programs are viruses and which aren't. Most peoples' anti-virus software doesn't like viruses and so rejects them. How does it choose? Well, it chooses based on what it is programmed to recognise as a virus. If it chooses to reject something incorrectly, is it to blame? No - the programmer is at fault.

"We're not machines. Otherwise we'd all do the same thing."

My phone acts differently to my TV set, but they're both machines. Every human is an individual. I'm not disputing that. But every time you make a choice, what determines how you make that choice is something created by an external 'hand'. The point is: what part of your personality are you ultimately responsible for? The irrefutable answer is: none.

Remember all those times you've been criticised or scolded? As children, this is how we're knocked into shape by adults. It's called discipline. We're taught to feel bad for doing 'bad' things.

"Simon, don't be so bloody arrogant, you think you know everything. Why don't you try being a bit more humble and listen to other peoples' opinions?"

I don't know, why don't I? I guess I just wasn't built that way.

"Don't be so cheeky. Go to your room!"

Why does someone break the law?

You know what, before I explore this, let me just say, every one of you reading this has broken many laws in your life. Maybe simply through ignorance of the law or because you decided the law was ok for you to break. How many of you have used pirated software, illegally downloaded music, even (in the old days) taped a LP and given it to your friend or knowingly accepted too much change at a store etc etc etc... the list is endless. We all have. We're all law breakers.

So I was having this discussion with a manager at work in the cash office. "If you're not responsible, it's ok for you to take the cash and walk off". I wouldn't do that, it's not in my character. But if someone did it, I couldn't say it was 'wrong' or that they were to blame. They just so happen to have been created a thief (laws create criminals, by the way).

This is the point most people walk away from this philosophy. Most of us cannot accept that someone who breaks the law (even though we are all law breakers) is not responsible for his or her actions. We - in general - hate this concept (it's ok, you were predetermined to hate it, so relax). "So," said the manager "you want to live in a world where anyone can do what they want?" No I don't. I prefer to live in a world where people aren't allowed to kill me or take my things (although, whether we live in that world right now is debatable).

Judges in courts still talk about "acts of evil" as they sum up a finding of guilty for some act of multiple murder, torture or rape. Evil? Really? My God, we're still burning witches. You see we were brought up - disciplined - with an idea of fair play through punishment. We're addicted to the idea of justice being done, even though we all break the law. We justify our own indiscretions - "so I parked in a disabled bay, it was just five minutes!" Maybe we even feel guilty about it.

"How can you compare parking offences to serious crimes like murder?!"

A British politician recently got hammered for saying there were more serious rapes than others. The point is, we all draw our own lines. The Law is not omnipotent to you, is it? Clearly not, because you've broken it many times. Where do you draw your line?

If someone told you he received a speeding fine, you wouldn't shun him as you would if he told you he had attempted to murder someone. Yet, the reason we have speed limits for cars is to reduce the amount of deaths and injuries caused by accidents. By increasing your speed, you are increasing your chances of killing someone. Like a child, or a father of three, or a beloved granny. But you don't give a shit. Because in your mind you're not bad.

In your mind. Why is it you think its ok? Hmm? I guess you were just made that way.

A very intelligent friend of mine ended our determinism discussion by saying "it's just nonsense". I'm presuming most of you reading this are probably thinking the same. It's difficult to break free from the idea of being ultimately responsible for our actions. Where does it leave us? It's the idea of choices which gives us the feeling of freedom and liberty. So I guess it's ironic that I'm suggesting you break free from that. I guess it's ironic that I'm suggesting some kind of freedom comes from realising how you are about to act at this point has been predetermined (those of you who've had enough and are about to stop reading: well, you were always going to do that at this point).

Actually, I'm not suggesting you do anything. What would be the point? You're only going to accept this idea if you're mind hasn't been programmed to see it as a virus.

Now I see why no-one told me about it before. There's a very strong human resistance to determinism. I guess it goes against everything we think we understand about ourselves and about others and about existence and the reason for getting up and doing stuff.

"So, what if I buy your idea that I'm just a mass of pre-determined ways of choosing things? What am I going to do with it? Do you know how much I've invested in the heroes and villains in my life? Tony Blair is a criminal who should stand trial for war crimes and I will shout loudly until he is brought to justice. My boss is a selfish, obnoxious arsehole who just can't accept I'd be better at his job than he is and I'm determined to prove it. My neighbour is a crazy bitch who needs to be taught some basic manners. My daughter has worked so hard all her life she deserves all the financial rewards she's now reaping...."

I've looked for philosophical arguments against it, but there's none. I've tried to think of an argument against it too (because I hate one-sided arguments) but I can't. The only angle against it has been "well, there's lots of things we don't understand". That's not an argument. It's dangerously close to the old 'God of the Gaps' device.