Recently in an argument, I brought up (in a discussion about capitalism vs. socialism) the idea that there are many things that are accepted as necessary evils, or simply go ignored, even though real people suffer. The reason why, is that others benefit from them, and this is merely accepted as a necessary evil, or something better not thought about. To keep things cheap, for instance, we will benefit off the labor of child slaves in other countries, or sweatshop labor (outsourced to other countries), or any number of things that are simply accepted as a necessary evil by large corporations. Now, I'm not a communist myself, and in fact consider it an extreme predictive philosophy that I don't think the world is "ready" to adopt (I think Star Trek tech is necessary to get to that point), but I do think that these are things that it's best not to put a complete blinder to, either.
As Thomas Paine said, "The long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right." We should call out wrongs for being wrong, instead of finding some justification for it.
The idea generally is, if it's out of sight and doesn't affect you, why should you get involved in any meaningful way? Many, if not most people, feel helpless in the world; politics, economy, ethnic strife, all are a much larger force than they could possibly influence, and indeed involve "necessary evils". This mentality cannot be said to be completely wrong-headed, as it's a way to keep sane; you aren't going to be able to influence everyone, and you aren't going to be able to make huge changes without huge investments and huge risks. But at the same time, if enough people put real suffering out of mind, they might as well be allowing that suffering.
As I once heard (paraphrased as I can't find the quote), "To keep neutral never helps the oppressed, it only helps the oppressor." The oppressed are the ones that cannot defend themselves, so the oppressor is able to do as they will unless acted upon by another party, even if that party is simply majority opinion.
The world is a complex web that's weaved with many strands that go unseen or unlearned. These strands come together to what we see, and cannot be unwoven without effort. But, the first step is understanding and tracing their origins. No one has an idea or a feeling for completely no reason. Everything has a history, whether oppressed or oppressing or neutral.
If politics is kept as politics, then the only ones to influence it will be politicians. If war is viewed as politics, then the only ones to influence it will be politicians. If far-off oppression is viewed as "not my problem", it will only go to those that will view it as their problem... which generally won't be the politicians.
Now, why SHOULD you consider it as your problem? The sad fact is, it is almost impossible to live in this world without influencing other people. Even if all you do is eat and sleep, using no electronics or modern technology whatsoever, that food comes from somewhere, and if you like your pick of food, it generally isn't local. You need space to sleep. Even these two fundamental requirements for living have an affect -- and with our globalized society, any effect will go along the "web" of human interaction, and influence someone else.
Just sticking with food products, do you like chocolate? Have you purchased chocolate? The thing is, cocoa beans have a long investment time in their production, that is not offset by the current cost of chocolate... so to keep your chocolate affordable, child slavery and similar exploitation is required. If the freedom of the cocoa farmers is respected, either they would stop growing cocoa altogether, or the price of cocoa would go up more than others would be willing to pay. But child labor, sweatshop factories, and similar forms of labor that go to benefit those in developed countries, will go ignored, because it's a good thing to keep prices low, and many won't ask what goes into making them low in the first place. Many point to the modern system as what makes people happy, but they will necessarily ignore whoever might be unhappy involved in the process, since they don't live next door.
Anyway you look at it, you have influence over others, and the ability to own and use certain items will not appear out of nowhere. Someone makes the iphone you use. Someone makes your computer. Someone does maintenance on the ISP that keeps you connected to the internet. Someone builds your car. With globalization, a far-off event could influence prices on items you would otherwise consider innocuous; chocolate, bananas, diamonds, oil, all are influenced thanks to international politics and interplay.
In this complex web of human interactions, all of this lies, as well as more -- history, race relations, cultural ideas that existed or were thrust on others. Exploitation, slavery, genocide, all of which happen for various reasons, ideologies, ethnic tensions, etc. All of this combine together to make a world in which one group of people will be willing to kill another group of people -- Nazis killing Jews, Japanese killing Chinese, Hutu killing Tutsi, etc. The problem is, dealing with these major influences by major nations has always been erratic and unpredictable. It's widely considered a good thing that the Nazis were opposed and the remaining Jews freed from genocide. At the same time, few were punished for the Rape of Nanking, even though that was a case of genocide, torture, and medical experimentation that went beyond inhumane. As for the Rwandan genocide, a handful of Belgians are killed, and then there's immediate extraction, and 800,000 Rwandans get murdered horribly. In Somalia, a handful of U.S. soldiers die, and the rest get extracted. Why are these cases taken so differently? The answer is complex, naturally, but ultimately it comes down to politics and economics. Rwanda is not "interesting" politically or economically. Somalia is not "interesting" politically or economically. Thus, the slaughter of 800,000 people is not seen as important as the deaths of 10 men, because 10 happen to come from one particular culture and political border (European).
This kind of mindset is baffling if one looks at the world as one where we should work for justice for all, or to see others as people. It isn't baffling if one is looking at the world as a politician that must consider his own nation first and foremost.
Thus, the politicization of morality and moral actions MUST be questioned. Ignorance and acceptance of this form of thought must eventually die away. Nations should not be considered more important than people, and suffering should never lie in the shadows, but be brought to light.
If your happiness is bought at the cost of another, and if that happiness would fade when you realize where it comes from, then you should question whether that happiness is a good thing. If others suffer because you want to be neutral, then you have to ask why you say you're against suffering in other cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment