Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society I dont owe humanity a damn thing

Since this phrase was used by issodhos on another thread, it seems to me that he epitomizes the fundamental issue. As i understand it, some of us come from the basic proposition that we are individuals and as such have inalienable rights and are free to exercise them as we see fit.

Others, or at least I, am of the view that human beings are, like most other primates, communal animals dependent upon and therefore responsible to the pack to which we belong. The way in which humans have evolved has resulted in a radical alteration in what constitutes a "pack."

I was watching an episode of Nova on PBS last night which traced the court case in Pennsylvania about "intelligent design" in the schools. It is clear that many of us are of the view that humans are a special form of life, with a unique set of rights and privileges. I think this thought is itself the downfall of the species.

My point in raising this is that to the extent we view ourselves as separate from other humans and other animals is the degree to which we will "fall from grace." The way in which we have evolved has resulted in a rather curious phenomenon -- we can "create" a "reality" in thinking that has no requirement of matching any other "reality." We can think up this "reality" and all that we require to be deemed "sane" is that this reality be somewhat consistent within itself and not deviate too far from the artificial reality shared with others.

So humans have collectively formed a reality in which there are "individuals", "rights", etc. which in turn have bred entire cultural structures and "realities."

The difficulty is, this is all an artidicial structure, apart from some more fundamental imperatives given by life itself. It is these imperatives that can reveal themselves in response to the question of this thread.

As a form of animal, our life is dependent upon and dedicated to the success of our fellow creatures. All of them, regardless of whether we like them, whether they "deserve" it or any other consideration. We are part of the whole and to the extent that divisiion from that whole in the form of "individual" is inconsistent with the welfare of the whole, it is deviant and to be avoided.

Schlack has asked for a philosophic discussion so that is where I am starting.

Okay, granted I'm not at my best today but I'll ask my question anyway.

I do understand how my life depends on others; that's easy to identify. It's not so easy for me to identify how others rely on me, aside from a few individuals in very specific cases. Could you expand/expound on that?

What I owe humanity can be described in one sentence. I must "Do onto others as I would have them do onto me." Don't threaten or force me to believe as you do, allow me the right to be wrong and to forgive as I wish to be forgiven.

I'm impressed, Schlack. You opened this orginating post by asking one question, and immediately answered an entirely different question. You asked what do individuals owe humanity. You answered with the suggestion of what the minimum is that individuals owe other "humans" (in other words, other individuals).

The rest of the posts by others that followed seem to have done the same and not actually answered what was asked.

By the way, you were in error when you wrote:

The word "owe" came directly from the poster I was responding to. Only have a few minutes, but will try to comment more (hopefully the thread will be straightened out and back on topic before then) next time I get to a PC.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, let's look at a few simple examples.

You consume resources, that means at the minimum, no one else consumes those resources, meaning you have taken from the communal pot.

You leave residue from your actions. That means that to some extent you rely upon others to clean up after you.

You have contact with other humans, plants and animals. This has an impact upon each.

Those are just the generalized ways in which you impact others. I am not sure if the word "rely" is where you are hooked, but if so, substitute "have an impact" and you will get what I am saying.

Thanks, Phil. "Rely" was, indeed, where I was hooked. The impact I understood immediately.

All good posts, thank you!

Stereoman, I think you summed it up perfectly, not "owe", or "obligation", but more like "responsibility" (More in a moment...)

Stootch, you make a very good point regarding propagation.

Julia, I am with you 100% in terms of how I feel as well, with perhaps one caution - Stootch's point I think is frighteningly real... and at the risk of being labeled as one of those people that was noted as only seeing the "commodity value" of humanity, I think the overwhelming shift of population expansion of the so-called 'third world' concommitant with the population *shrinkage* of the 'developed world' may very well be A Bad Thing. I don't know; there are so many factors involved. Should we discourage (or prevent?) people from 'propagating' in places where there are not enough resources? Should we shift resources to alleviate suffering exacerbated by such expansion? Or should we encourage the 'developed world' to propagate *more* to balance things out, perhaps even to provide more resources to everyone? I think the answer is "no" to all of the above - but that is a special complex aspect of the question in this thread, and I think it deserves its own thread. I certainly do not have the answer! (but I would love to see the opinions - another thread though...)

So, back to the question.

As my jumping off point, let me quote Phil:

Whether you believe in a Creator or a happy accident of evolution, I think we *are* special, at least on this planet. However, with this rank comes the responsibilities that Steve mentioned... I once read a thought how 'responsibility' means 'ability to respond'... not just react. I would like to differentiate 'respond' from 'react' in that it means to take action under conscious control, not just react in a preprogrammed way. Chemical reactions react; When we touch a hot stove, we react (hopefully!). But to *choose* to do something that does not benefit us directly takes a conscious response.

In any event, I think it is impractical and short-sighted to not accept that responsibility.

"Impractical", because humans cannot practically exist without the cooperation of other humans, which at times will call for us to do something for the 'collective' that may come at some personal cost.

"Short-sighted", because even though at times we may be called upon to do things that seem to be at a personal cost without any direct benefit, that there still is a benefit from being a member of the collective that one day will be there to meet a need that we ourselves cannot provide.


After all is said and done, however, I can see why some might not want to see it as a "debt" or "obligation"; if it is an actual debt, it can be "demanded", and perhaps not recognized as an act of generosity when it is repaid... I understand that, but I don't agree with it. I think it *is* a debt, and it *should* be recognized as generosity when "paid", but it is still worth doing even when not appreciated or acknowledged.

To reduce human need and human contribution to a balance sheet item would devalue perhaps the most important benefit of all - spiritual growth. I could write a lot more about it, but instead I'll just recommend the book 'The Road Less Traveled' by M. Scott Peck - it's all there. You can call it 'feeling good' or 'doing the right thing', but if you only are willing to do something while at the same time expecting a 'balancing of accounts' at some point, then you are missing out on something far more valuable.

That's my opinion anyway. (As usual I've probably taken an entire page that Julia or someone else could sum up in two sentences!)

No, everyone *is* addressing what we "owe" "humanity", by describing how we treat "humans" in general - not any specific human. That's the whole point. Apparently I'm missing your point, could you give an example of how I would interact with "humanity" without interacting with "humans"?

Good post, RB. As an avowed non-reader of books, I recommend M. Scott Peck's very brief but rewarding volume. I like the way you expressed the tenuous balance between "obligation" and "generosity".

Getting back to the problem of overpopulation in, shall we say "the Southern Hemisphere", let us remember that the one US-based NGO that is most consistently and roundly criticized by the Religious Right is the very one most involved in addressing this problem. And yes, of course it is a Very Bad Thing. But so is infant mortality, short life expectancy, and low quality of life.

iss, I'm going to assume that your differentiation between "humanity" and "humans" is much more than just a quibble. I look forward to understanding the difference. On the surface, however, I can unite with the idea that what I do to benefit others is not in fact a conscious attempt to benefit all of humanity, but merely an impulse to offer help where it seems needed, without giving much thought to how wide is the circle of recipients. As I said before, I think this is "human nature". Phil made a very good point when he said:

The concept of "humanity" as a whole is one I was struggling with at the beginning. Quite honestly, there is very little I, personally, will do that will affect humanity as a whole - as a species. It is the aggregate of all our actions that affects the species as a whole; what I control and and what I can change is, very often, only my portion of the aggregate, dealing only with that part of the population I can affect.

I'm going to start another thread in a bit for the population thing.