Within the individual’s self there exists a perpetual struggle not unlike the social struggle for survival and the struggle for power. To begin it might be appropriate to distinguish two terms which are often confused. A human being is a biological concept (homo sapiens) and a behavioral sciences concept. From the sociological-anthropological point of view a human being is defined in descriptive terms in accordance with social awareness, and ability to form social groups and bonds. A person on the other hand is a legal and moral concept, perhaps a theological concept. A person is an individual with social interactions, but is also held responsible for said interactions – a moral agent. Here the concept is a normative one, and the difference is subtle but best seen as one of norms versus descriptions – what one ought to be versus what one is. Hence a pet, say a dog, is a person in the sense that there are certain norms for which he/she is held accountable. If the dogs bites someone, he is incarcerated in the pound until such time as it can be determined that the incident caused no permanent harm and might not be repeated. It might be argued that the owner of the dog is held accountable, but it is the dog that is incarcerated. Likewise there are other persons who are not human-beings – God, for instance, in Christian terms, is considered three persons in one substance. Here again person is normative and not descriptive. God and pets are said to have personality and thus are in one sense persons.
The struggle within an individual person is almost simultaneously a struggle for empowerment and a struggle for survival. The struggle for empowerment includes the struggle within one’s self to do what one ought to do, i.e. to be obedient to some higher calling and the moral law. Being morally and legally upright and obedient to a higher calling is in fact a struggle against the inclinations of the person to achieve power through means that are not in accordance with the moral law and laws of the land wherein the person resides. This inner struggle is what the Islamic faith calls jihad, and any notion to the contrary is in fact other than what that faith teaches. For the Christian the struggle is exemplified in the scene of Jesus in Gethsemane, and His temptation before. All persons are engaged in a struggle to do what one ought and /or take the easy route to “fame and fortune”. Perhaps too often the struggle results more in fame than in doing what is by any standard what one should or ought to do. Fame is a great temptation, and it is for this reason that some disturbed persons seek satisfaction in infamy. The attention drawn to oneself as a consequence of gross misdeeds and horrific acts of pain, torture and even death, is a temptation to greatness and notoriety, which may not otherwise be achieved. This is where the struggle for power becomes perverse and rather than aiming at what is in accordance with moral and legal standards. Failure to aim at the moral and legal correctness is in fact a perversion, and the struggle for empowerment thereby becomes seriously flawed.
The flaw is nothing less than the failure to bring the individual’s will into accord with the universal will dictated by the moral law. One tends to give natural law theory a jocular dismissal, but in at least one sense, obedience to the natural law is nothing more, nor less than respecting the natural and unalienable rights of other persons. Should we take a Kantian turn to our thought, the Kingdom of Ends is exactly a commonwealth of persons respecting the autonomy and unalienable rights of all persons. Granted it is an ideal and no commonwealth or nation lives up to the ideal. But is that not precisely what ideals are, namely norms for all societies? One may reluctantly obey the moral and natural law, but one ought to have sufficient intent to be obedient out of respect for the moral law. It is in some sense the intent that counts and not the mere obedience. If it were only the obedience that counted, there would be no struggle just an acceptance of what the moral law dictates. But mere obedience is insufficient for the rational creature which a person is and ought to be. Reason requires an intent that one can respect if not venerate. If the consequences of the struggle are the sole raison d’être for action both moral and legal, there would be no need to reason about one’s actions, no need for trial where reason takes place. The mere failure to obey would be reason enough for a guilty verdict. To be a person therefore is, in some sense, to be capable of reasoning toward action, and not mere acting. Robots can act. Persons act in accordance with reason, emotion and will (intent) of their own making.
No comments:
Post a Comment