The Avant-Courier of Justice
On the last musing I focused on justice and freedom, mostly justice---and touched on empathy. On further thought I think justice starts with empathy. No empathy, probably little justice. It is hard to be fair to someone, or any group, you don't like. And the dislike doesn't have to be of a personal nature. The Jews or Vietnamese or any of the recent genocidal mass killings were, for the most part, irrelevant to the personal attributes of the victims. For injustice to exist there doesn't always have to be any burning dislike, it may exist for purely selfish advantages. Slavery was useful to the owner. The usefulness of slavery simply trumped any justice or right to freedom. Modern day slavery thrives for the same reason. The slave labor in the third world countries produces cheap goods for the affluent across the globe. Empathy for these foreign slave laborers can wait. Justice can wait. And without justice there is no real freedom. Justice can be denied because a person or group is personally disliked, because the injustice produces a benefit for those controlling the injustice, or the religious/political bent of others is contrary to the political/religious bent of those controlling the justice. The make-up of the Supreme Court is invaluable because it is through this avenue the extent of justice can be controlled.
At any rate, the common thread upon which all this rests is empathy. Of course empathy has its limits. It is hard, in my mind, to have empathy with those who show little empathy for diversity or the less fortunate. Kindnesses to those with whom you have little in common are the seeds of contentment. If one cannot feel empathy with diversity one cannot be contented. There will always be all kinds of enemies to detest, control, keep at a distance, and punish. Therein lies the irony of blind energetic adherence to inherited religious dogma. By definition, others cannot be tolerated if they, in your eyes, are not doing God's will according to your own inherited faith based religious beliefs. It doesn't always have to be religious intolerance. There is cultural intolerance----even down to differences in dress, music, lifestyles, etc. In the absence of empathy there are endless battles to be fought, an endless build up of emotional hostility directed at others. To get relief you then need to wall yourself off from those who generate the hostile feelings and avoid contact with them. With today's mass media, this is difficult. These irrirtants will be in your face, one way or another.
Sometimes we settle for instituting laws or regulations which will at least make these irritating persons appear to be, or act according to, our liking---so we make dress codes, or make certain drugs illegal, or make certain areas inaccessible to them, or limit their privileges or rights, etc. To make them suffer brings some relief. To reign them in provides us with a sense of power. Justice is irrelevant under the circumstances. All this rampant lack of empathy does is to create divisive solidarity among diverse groups and especially the targeted group. This lack of empathy creates social solidarity amongst the designated victims and their social solidarity leads to open conflict and open conflict follows an uncertain path. Nothing good ever comes from lack of empathy. Having said all this, there is nothing in empathy which implies tolerating injustice or unethical behavior. BUT, ethical behavior, in any logical sense, is defined by the golden rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you. All else is human contrived dogma.
It is very difficult to analyze the origins and distribution of empathy. Some people thrive on hunting, others feel too much merciful compassion for the hunted animals to be energetic hunters. Some soldiers thrive on combat and killing, others get sick to their stomach over all of it. Some get purple hearts, others get post war traumatic syndromes. Some thrive on movies with gore and violence, others avoid such movies. The most empathic parents can end up with totally different sons on the empathy scales. Thus the issue of empathy is clouded in mystery. It is not clear, for example, that empathy can be taught in a classroom. How do you really reach those who lack empathy toward diversity? I can't say I have really seen too many people with little empathy toward others change much over time. On the other hand, generations tend to change and always in the direction of justice. An examination of history, at least in retrospect, shows that injustices defended by one generation tend to be acted on and corrected by succeeding generations. One of the blessings of youth is their willingness to be open minded and more objective about the injustices supported by their parents or society in general. Were it not for the open-mindedness and rebelliousness of youth justice would be hard to prevail. Issues like slavery, women's right to vote, segregation etc. were always were given justice by the youth of the next generations. And even today, on issues like gay rights, it is the next generation providing the impetus for justice on the issue. One could ask, I suppose, why adults are so much less likely to correct injustices and must wait on the youth of another generation to bring the justice? Perhaps as adults we spend a lifetime formulating faith based notions about this or that and to suddenly reverse course on one issue brings an unsettling insecurity about the validity of our other faith based issues. If some adults don't think it through that way, religious leaders do. Once something declared sinful is changed to not sinful, or vice-versa, it brings into question the validity of all faith based dogma. Let's be honest---organized religions feel under heavy assault by rapidly changing ethical values. Something wrong is now suddenly right? Or something right is now suddenly wrong? For most faith based religious organizations the 'all or none law' becomes the operative mentality of the faithful---a sort of 'over my dead body', 'circle the wagons' state of mind. If one believes God declared something wrong or right, it is logically incomprehensible that He was mistaken. Of course, by definition God is always right, so that leaves the human religious authors of the dogma as humanly fallible. And if they are wrong on one issue, how many other issues might they be wrong about? The consequence of all this is that more and more people start, on their own, accepting some beliefs and rejecting others. Churches then begin to split into 'liberal' and 'conservative'factions. This divisiveness leads more and more people to feel on the fence about a lot of key issues and church attendance then suffers. The purists take on hard edges, become angrier and angrier, more combative, and their demeanor, whatever else it may project, comes across as more and more 'un Christ' like in tone and actions. At this point empathy (among the purists) toward others takes a huge beating.
One of the most sensitive, kindest gals in my building sent a mass email as follows:
This is why we love Texas
*****************************
T. B. Bechtel,a part-time City Councilman from Midland, TX,
was asked on a local live radio talk show,
just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the
Iraqi prisoners.
His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to
thunderous applause from the audience.
'If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's balls to a car's
battery cables will save one Texas GI's life, then I have just
three things to say:
'Red is positive,
Black is negative,
Make sure his balls are wet.'"
Clearly this portrays total lack of empathy for others of a different ilk. The answer to this sort of hatred is simple. If Texans don't want to be killed by Iraqis then perhaps they might refuse to support or be a part of invading that country. This little rage against others, as these kind of rages always do, manages to convert the victims into oppressors. The slaves were not the victims, they were the demons. The Vietnamese were not the victims they were the demons. Gays are not the victims, they are the sinful demons, and so it goes. The Golden Rule is merely ignored as some sort of purely etherial utopian decorative cover to hide the blemishes of intolerance to others of a different ilk.
Harsh as my comments might be, the solution for lack of empathy is still elusive. Some people, given real exposure to those groups existing under the injustices, will become empathetic to their plight. Others, given the same exposure, will not. I wonder what percentages of those who attend 'sensitivity' sessions at work really develop empathy? I guess the question is whether you can really teach empathy? Empathy is more an emotion than an intellectual exercise. You sometimes feel empathy as a consequence of exposure, in person, to the injustices. As long as the kind lady who sent that email does not know personally any of the tortured prisoners, she can have no empathy with them. If she did know them, knowing her sensitive nature, she would be hysterical at their torture. "Stop it" she would scream before passing out.
Judgment on ethical matters and the issues of empathy is sometimes beyond human reach. It is like going into a rage because your son or daughter loves the village's least understood creep. People love who they love. Is this a sin or a prosecutable offense? I guess not either. Is it a mistake? Might be. Of course in this wayward son or daughter example there is no victim. In the torture cases, or groups dealt an injustice, there are victims. Empathy is not required on any universal basis for justice to happen. Minorities can be protected by judicial decrees and justice can even be voted in with the help of those who let objectivity overrule their own feelings. It is possible not to like or understand this or that group and still shrug and say, "Well, if they don't bother me, let them live as they want and get equal privileges under the law."
Little amazes me so much as to observe individuals who show so much empathy with their own family members, their own neighbors, their own religious believers, etc. and have an opposite excessive little empathy with others of diverse backgrounds. It is almost like the more loyal they are to their own kind, the more hostile they are to others of any different kind. God help any of these others if such self centered individuals serve on their jury trial, or are their teacher, or an arresting policeman, etc. If a teacher has no empathy with a particular group, for whatever reason, it is nigh impossible for such teachers to hide their lack of empathy. He/she can say all the politically correct things, but the targeted students know. They always know. All of us can figure out rather quickly which individuals in any group setting have disdain for us. It is often what they don't say or don't do which tips us off. Most people figure out pretty quickly when they have to watch their back from someone. Once the trust is gone, conflict and confrontation are not far behind. And trust, once betrayed, is not easy to restore.
Empathy is a concept which intrigues me. It is, after all, this lack of empathy which makes the world a dangerous place to live. If everyone had empathy with others of a different ilk, then all we would have to address are the common criminals---the thieves, rapists, killers, etc. That is manageable if there can be empathy on all the other issues which cause turmoil. What is empathy in practice other than the ability to see things through the eyes of others, to understand why they feel the way they do, and to then seek commonality of goals so conflict can be avoided and justice done to all the parties concerned?
Without empathy the evolutionary process---at the human level---would be unmercifully cruel. Survival of the fittest may well be some sort of obligatory process for evolutionary progress. There is no doubt, from the broadest viewpoint, that evolutionary progress has always been upward into more complex and advanced species. The human species exists because of this God created evolutionary process. Much like medicines come with unwanted side effects, evolution comes with unwanted side effects, side effects which can be painful and even fatal to specific individuals. We are not all created equal, and but for empathy, the less competitive (the unfortunate) in life would receive no mercy, no fairness, little support. In this respect empathy is the cornerstone of human ethics. We all know it is good to be kind, and some individual acts of kindness, covered by the media, receive almost universal applause---feel good stories. The purpose and goal of empathy is to make the evolutionary process less painful for the least amongst us. It is far beyond my ability to decipher the consequences of unethical behavior, but it just seems logical that judgment will be based on this concept of empathy. To horde wealth, power, or even good health is not exactly an act of empathy with the less fortunate. Certain humans may thrive because of genetic advantages in a given environment, but there is no basis for any "well, I earned this advantage". Genetics, environment and luck are the operative forces determining the fate of all members of all species. And in the end, all members of all species are dead. Or are they? The basis of life is not individual organisms but DNA molecules and these continue on forever. The evolutionary process dictates that life is a continuum, and despite the ignorance of the creationists who view God in a different light, apart from the evolutionary process---- and view God as some sort of meddling interventionist on behalf of his chosen 'people', obsessed with punishment, in need of constant praise and prayers in order to do the right thing for the right people at the right time. I certainly cannot prove otherwise, but the logic of it all fails me.
Partly because of age, partly because of my personality, partly because of my good luck in earlier years, I no longer feel any need for expensive hobbies, world travel, titles, power, control over others, or any of the influences which interfere with empathy for others. If ever 'live and let live' drives my life, now it is at its apex. I try to live simply, and whatever modest accumulation of wealth I have is, or will be, returned back into the society from whence it came. Empathy dictates that it go directly to causes or people with needs, and in the process make a better life for those less fortunate. This simplicity of living, and the empathy created with my intentions, brings contentment. Others, at a different age, with differing personalities, and with more or less luck in life, will view this empathy thing through different lenses. The road to contentment may well be different for different folks. The role of ethics is there, but not for me to judge.
Since justice starts with empathy for others, let empathy be the basis of our ethics and let empathy be used to take off the rough edges from God's created evolutionary process. Empathy is good for our mental health and indeed, our popularity amongst others. It is hard to dislike a person who likes all kinds of people. It is hard to dislike a teacher who likes all kinds of students. When I observe people, and I do that a lot in many different settings, it is clear the happiest are those who appreciate diversity. Not just tolerate it grudgingly, but find diversity the spice of life. Empathy carries it's own reward via contentment. I look back on the many meetings in which the fate of some 'nothingburger' was held in the hands of a committee vote.The purists, the rule enforcers, the 'rule is a rule is a rule' gang, the stern enforcers of discipline members, always held rules sacrosanct even when the reason for the rule hardly applied in a particular case for justice to be done. It was never a person to be evaluated, but a rule to be enforced. If justice was done and the rule exempted or twisted to achieve justice, the anger of those with little empathy extended not just to the person being judged but to those who made the justice happen. Those who brought about the justice felt good, proud of themselves and happy for the defendant. Know the makeup of a jury and the outcome will be predictable. I used to ask those who so desperately sought punishment "Why are you so angry? There is nothing evil in giving people a chance who can be shown to deserve a chance." It was never to any avail. Their reply was always along the lines, " Why even make rules if they are not going to be enforced? Let's just let everyone do as they please around here". I've had my share of breaks and second chances and it just seems fair for others, least blessed with the best genes and/or the best environment to get a few breaks too. There is nothing wrong with giving the least amongst us breaks PROVIDING the breaks are based on need, not family connections, ethnicity, looks, etc. Reasonable affirmative actions based on need and circumstances are not unfair, they are only unfair when based on something other than need. The vast majority of affirmative actions in our modern age have gone to those in designated groups with no need to be given any breaks. This is outrageous and leaves behind even further those with real needs.
In the broadest sense, when Rev. Wright screamed "God damn America" he was no more irrational than those who scream "God Bless America". God created an evolutionary process. The laws which govern that process are not driven by any demands by us or anyone else. You can tell God to bless or you can tell God to damn, but the process proceeds irrespective of this nonsense and the laws of evolution don't know America from Africa. I really would like to be more important than I am, but with time I mellow and understand more, and see more clearly the role individuals play in the evolutionary process. As Lincoln said, "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." That, to me, is about the sum of life for each of us, and to whatever extent there is more to it, the future only knows.
