Aquavelvet N°7

I have been of the mind, for quite some time now, that we as a species are in our very nature rather weak willed. It is my belief that man is not a moral creature and that this fact is not an inherently bad thing. My main reasoning for this is rooted in above all, my own experience. I have, with my own eyes, seen the immoral ways in which men can behave. I believe that our own immorality is rooted not in some godlessness or lack of direction, but instead in our own mortality. We as a species are forever tethered to our mortal coil. We all must someday die, but absent of some form of pathology we hope that day does not come for quite some time. Thus our primary motivation must be to act in self-preservation at all costs. Take for example the following situation. One is walking down the street, a car pulls up beside you and out jumps three masked individuals. They place a bag over your head and bind your feet and hands. You are driven to somewhere you have never been before. Next to you stands another person. Before you stands your abductors, who are still masked. Your abductors inform you that either you or the person standing next to you is going to die in five minutes and it is up to you to decide which one it will be. If you choose to sacrifice yourself, then the person next to you will be set free and you will be killed. However, the inverse holds true as well, if you should choose, your fellow prisoner will die and you will be set free. I believe it is fair and reasonable to say that baring some exceptions one would rather naturally choose to live and thus would let their fellow human being die. Now of course one will have the exceptions to this rule such as certain relevant pathologies, or the pre-emptive motivation to preserve ones own line. Thus it follows that given the choice of losing ones own life versus someone else losing there life one must choose the preservation of their own life unless the other life in jeopardy is the life of ones flesh or ones own life is deemed to be at it's end already. An example of the latter would be if one has just been told that they have an untreatable, terminal illness and have only a finite time to live, in which case it is reasonable to believe that one could deduce that the life of the other is more valuable. Furthermore, it is my belief that ones reaction to this predicament is neither selfish, self-indulgent nor immoral. I believe that if life is in fact sacred, which given our dominance over the world not to mention our continued existence, I believe it is, than it must follow that their is nothing wrong or inhumane about choosing to live even if that means another must die. The question of morality must then, I believe be framed in slightly different terms. If one accepts that they would choose their own life over the life of their fellow man then the real test of immorality must be not what would or would not someone do but instead what the lengths with which one would go to. Take the original example to the next step. Would after choosing death for ones fellow man might one also volunteer to take the life of the other by their own hands. Thus returning to the original situation. After choosing ones own life, your abductors show you a door, they inform you that if ones passes through said door they will find themselves back on the street where they were abducted with no memory of the preceding events. Does one pass through the door and go about the rest of their life or does one turn to their abductors and ask if they themselves can take the life of their fellow captive. This I believe is the real question of morality. Not whether one would choose their own life over the life of another but would one actively take the life of another. Furthermore, the question begs what is the motivation of those who choose not just to let their fellow human being die but who volunteer to take that life with ones own hands. It is, in my mind, commonly held that only a fractional portion of the human race would choose the latter path. However, I believe that if one actually examines human behaviour throughout history one actually finds the contrary to be true. Take for example Nazi Germany. The fact is that not only did the vast majority of German people take an active role in the Holocaust but that contrary to what one might assume, Nazism rose up through the learned class. The most staunch fascists were not ignorant sheep but were in fact academics and scholarly people. Throughout human existence people who for all intensive purposes should "know" better have taken an active role in the most barbaric of acts. Thus it follows that if these inhumanities are not a by-product of ignorance than what does in fact bring them about. Returning to my original assertion that acting in ones own self-preservation is perfectly normal and healthy and ultimately quite common then I believe it follows that even the most moral and compassionate people would make that choice if given the same circumstances. Thus, if compassionate people are capable of such acts of supposed barbarism and history shows that far more people are capable of acts of legitimate barbarism than can be explained away as pathological than it must follow that acts of mass barbarism and inhumanity must be a product of apathy. What other explanation could there be? If Gandhi would choose to let his fellow man die so he could live and if history shows that too many are responsible for the holocausts of the world for all of the participants to have been jack the ripper then what else could be the force driving these acts of inhumanity if not that very human emotion that is apathy. What is the most given motivation throughout history for man's inaction in the face of suffering. From the three who passed the wounded traveller prior to the good Samaritan all the way up to the final episode of Seinfeld. Apathy is the seemingly constant motivation for acts of self-indulgent barbary. Furthermore, if it is in fact true that it is humane to choose our life over the life of another and if even the most compassionate among us is capable of sacrificing the life of another so that we shall live than what is morality if not choosing to cherish our lives that have been spared because we chose for another to perish. In other words, morality and in a way divinity is the act of cherishing ones life for no other reason other than because we have it. Life is sacred not merely because we can lose it but also because others everyday do lose it. It is with this in mind that I believe that taking an active role in the ending of another human beings life, regardless of the circumstances must be seen as the single most deplorable act we as human beings are capable of. People die everyday, and because of that we must constantly be vigelant lest our apathy turn us into the monsters we so deplore. To be self aware is to realise the bipolar nature of self-indulgence. When in that room where only one will leave trying to save your fellow man at the risk of both of you dying is as equally self-indulgent as offering to pull the trigger yourself. Today you live, so enjoy it because tomorrow you might not be the one making the decision as to who lives and who dies.