While it is true that our society is based on power and that this power generally rests in men's hands, the current feminist movement must be recognized as somewhat of a social dilemma. Although the philosophy of feminism has gathered a large following of both men and women, it contains many inconsistencies and few, if any, valid arguments. It seems to have grown out of a general frustration of the female gender of our species, who complain that life is not all that beautiful or that they do not have all they want.
In the first place, the energies of the feminist movement are misdirected. Many women focus their anger or discontent not on the injustice of the social system, but rather on men, who themselves are its victims. Some of the women even confuse feminism with exhibitionism when they bare their breasts in public, complaining that men do this all the time (which is true), or asserting that what is natural is beautiful (though it often is not, at least to some of us).
It is commonly believed that the current system fails women because it is based on the unequal distribution of power (the haves against the have-nots), not because of specific gender domination. If one accepts the notion that women should fight for power, it will lead them nowhere. It may result in a shift of power but will not solve the problem of power. Some feminists seem to hate men with a passion that is typical of all militant people. It is sheer stupidity to think that the problem can be solved by one side or the other grabbing power for itself. If women could look at men as themselves victims of the system, as misfits and spoiled children instead of aggressors and oppressors, they might then try to settle their differences in a reasonable way.
Finally, we must ask a number of questions: Why do women want power? To use it, of course, but against whom or what? And how? Is there any guarantee that they will be satisfied if they achieve their equal share of power? Will they not become as aggressive and abusive as men? Will they not turn into equally offensive barbarians?
Women should not fight against men, but against the imperfect system that fosters such inequality. The best choice is to advocate change in a peaceful way. The only hope lies in the legislation of equal rights and opportunities for men and women and in the enlightenment of the people to bring about a change in their attitudes. We must appeal to whatever reason the masses possess, and strive for cooperation and collaboration, which are far more productive than competition.
But first, we must achieve understanding. This is where feminist energy should be directed. Though less aggressive, dramatic, and rapid than many of us would like, this method will be more effective in the end.
The issue of abortion has been the centre of many debates and discussions in recent years, yet in perpetuating the dialogue we fail to arrive at any significant conclusion to the question of whether abortion, or the elimination of the foetus, is right or wrong.
One should distinguish two fundamental aspects of the abortion issue: (l) the rights of the mother versus those of the foetus and (2) the definition of when life begins.
The arguments surrounding abortion, whether pro-life or pro-choice, are passionate, emotional appeals based on the notion of human rightsthe rights of the mother and those of the unborn child. In this, both sides can be seen to be at fault because they lack solid reasoning and focus on the ideal rather than on the real situation. In the first place, it is absurd to argue about something that does not really exist. The rights of either the mother or the foetus do not exist as such because they are not stipulated by law or by constitution. They exist only in people's imagination. The two sides, pro-life and pro-choice, instead of fighting each other without a purpose, should work towards having these rights incorporated into law.
While the pro-life supporters may be applauded for their determination to save the fetus, one must question their apparent indifference to the daily loss of human life, both children and adults, through violent acts. Is it simply that they have become accustomed to the daily reports of brutal killings in media, or do they place more value on the unborn child than on the adult? Even more astonishing has been the recent report of the murder of an abortion-performing American physician by someone supposedly devoted to the preservation of life.
It is absolutely crucial to this debate that a clear definition of human be agreed upon by both sides. Some argue that human life is sacred, that the act of conception creates a human life, and that each human life has the right to achieve its full potential. Others assert that the foetus is not human and that there is, therefore, nothing to argue about. Certainly, when one considers the foetus in light of human and animal characteristics, there is no disputing the idea that this parcel of tissue appears to be much more animal than human. It has yet to develop any of the qualities outlined earlier, such as reason, wisdom, or imagination, that distinguish Homo sapiens from mammals or other living creatures. A newborn child displays less intellect and has fewer abilities than a one-year-old chimpanzee. Cases have been recorded of humans who were raised by animals and possessed predominantly animal characteristics.
Certainly, it can be argued that we must recognize the human potential of the foetus, that each created being, given the right environment, may develop into a fully human being. However, of the billions of foetuses created, only a very small percentage get past the halfway point. Most remain in a semianimal state in which their existence is centred around the pursuit of pleasure and the instinct for survival. Some will fight, kill, and destroy their own habitat to this end with little or no thought about the consequences their actions will have on those around them or on future generations. Children born to adults who live on this level of consciousness have little chance of overcoming their environmental influences and reaching a higher state of humanity themselves.
Having examined the two extremes, one can see that some solution or compromise is needed. The means of achieving consensus can only be found in a deeper understanding of the problem. The problem is not so much the foetus, but the fact that it has been createdby two human beings engaging in sex, perhaps with no thought of the consequences. The solution is to prevent accidental pregnancies by enlightening the ignorant and the immature about the negative impact of pornography and sexual promiscuity, so that they do not make babies they cannot take care of. The number of unplanned pregnancies is currently out of control; it could be reduced by prohibiting or, at least, restricting sex propaganda. As to those relatively few unwanted pregnancies which would undoubtedly occur, society could afford to take care of them. The very idea of such control over society, however, runs counter to the notion of democracy. Yet the problem has become so serious that it leaves us with no other alternative.
A few years ago I watched a television programme on which a philosophy professor discussed the issue of suicide and euthanasia with his students. They had seen a documentary movie about a young lady who was terminally ill, bedridden, and in great pain and who finally decided that she would rather die than continue to live this way. Her parents, who could not remain indifferent to her suffering, supported her decision. As for the doctors, most of them, naturally, cared more about their own reputation and their image of being humane and compassionate than about the young lady's tragic dilemma.
The discussion was based on the unanimous assumption that the issue of suicide was a moral one. In my opinion, suicide is not a moral question. Here are my arguments.
If we proceed from a nonreligious, nonmystical, almost utilitarian assumption that morality is a set of rules and principles of conduct developed in the course of the evolution of mankind to ensure its survival and further humanization, we can consider moral only those acts which do good to human society as a whole or, at least, are tolerable because they do not run counter to its interests.
Let us now consider the decision of the young woman in question to take her own life.
As far as euthanasia is concerned, this is a moral issue. If an adult person who is terminally ill wants to die and asks doctors for help, it would be only humane on their part to provide such help based on an appropriate procedure and set of regulations that would prevent all forms of abuse and errors. I believe that a human being must have at least his or her last wish respected and complied with. However, many doctors and ethicists impervious to reason and logic (some of them don't even believe in God) obstinately continue to label euthanasia as murder. With few exceptions, doctors prefer to play it safe and defend the status quo rather than risk losing their reputation and peace of mind. But this issue will not go away. It will remain and will grow to demand resolution.
6.12 Drugs, Prostitution, and Gambling
These are the vices that are eating human society from the inside, destroying its still tender values and virtues. In the environment of laissez-faire, hedonism, and selfishness, they are increasingly gaining ground. Again, greed and money are behind it all. Let us take a look at these vices one by one.
Drugs . There is some disagreement about the causes and the ways of approaching the problem of drug abuse. However, all of us seem to agree on one point, namely, its consequences. And these are tragic, because drug abuse tends to do severe damage to man's mental and physical capacities and significantly contributes to social ills such as crime and violence.
Why do people use drugs? The answer can be put in very simple terms: because drugs give people pleasure and excitement. Children are particularly vulnerable to drugs. They come in contact with drugs through exposure to peer pressure, to the harsh environment in which they live, or to television and the film industry, where drugs are often part of exciting events. The use of drugs is no longer limited to the criminal world. Today it pervades Western society from the very bottom to the very top. Chances are that many of our future political leaders will have tried them, whether they inhaled or not.
As far as solutions are concerned, some of the so-called experts on the subject believe that abuse of hallucinogenic substances could be solved through their legalization, arguing that by making drugs freely available to the public and punishing (and even executing) major dealers, the problem would essentially be solved. In my opinion, this is an irresponsible and half-witted approach. First of all, legalizing drugs means, as it were, legitimizing "sin," that is, accepting a vice as a norm. Another human value would have been lost; another step backwards in human evolution would have been taken. Some intellectuals, however, must have taken Oscar Wilde's joke ("the best way to resist temptation is to yield to it") literally. Second, free access to narcotics will not reduce the demand for them, just as free access to alcohol has not solved the problem of alcohol abuse, which is still on the increase. Anyone capable of observing things would know that the less you are in contact with what tempts you, the less chance that you will succumb to it. Contemporary man has not yet reached that level of maturity and willpower which would enable him to draw the line between harmless use and destructive abuse.
For the time being, the solution to this problem lies in a stricter legal system and better control over the entertainment industry, and television in particular, which incorporate the subject of drug abuse into their product to make it more exciting and saleable. The death penalty should be legislated for the big drug dealers. Society should continue to consider drugs a "bad thing."
Prostitution . While discussing the subject of prostitution I was once asked: "What, philosophically speaking, is wrong with a prostitute earning income by having sex with a consenting adult, especially if the prostitute in question uses all forms of protection? Who is this third person, this `authority' who can say, `No, this is immoral'? First of all, this question is not simply a philosophical one, for we are dealing with real-life situations. Furthermore, morality is not just a philosophical concept; it is a social notion underlying and determining human relations.
So, what is wrong with prostitution? It is an activity (modern society has conferred upon it the noble title of "profession") in which a prostitute meets with many different clients in different circumstances. It is a well-known fact that things don't always go smoothly between the prostitute and the client. Since there is no foolproof protection against sexually transmitted diseases, there is always a chance that the prostitute may catch a deadly disease, such as syphilis or AIDS, and then pass it on to her next clients. Besides being a vice, prostitution cohabitates with other vices such as drugs, racketeering, and violence. It is a competitive "business," and, therefore, few of the prostitutes (the "elite," so to speak) may find themselves in a position to screen their clients for "a clean bill of health" and "respectability." The rest cannot afford to be too picky and are often subjected to physical and mental abuse by their pimps and clients. Quite a few prostitutes have children whose lives are liable to be seriously affected, if not destroyed, by their mothers' way of life. Evidence shows, for example, that sex addicts come from families where parents have lead a promiscuous life. All these are facts of real life, not philosophical speculations. This is another example of how important it is to link philosophy with reality if we want to understand a problem and find a solution to it.
Some believe this problem could be resolved by legalizing prostitution and instituting strict medical control over its practitioners. This will not work any better than in the case of drugs. In terms of morality, we would legitimize just another sin. In practical terms, it would be a naive and futile attempt to achieve the impossible: the self-regulation of the most powerful animal instinct that possesses man.
Many people try to justify prostitution by saying it is the oldest profession in the world. Is that a reason why we should accept it? Old does not necessarily mean good . Scalp hunting is probably an older occupation. Prostitution should remain illegal and we should continue to wage war against it. Not only through legislation, but, first and foremost, through education and enlightenment.
Gambling . Though extensively glamourized by the entertainment media and more and more accepted by the public, gambling remains a social vice. Indeed, I cannot see how else we should regard an unproductive social activity that feeds upon people's greed for money and their addiction to excitement. No positive values can be associated with gambling. The rich lose heaps of money at the casino to get their "high." The not-so-rich are chasing after the elusive dream of striking the jackpot, many of them getting addicted, losing all their possessions, ruining their lives, and destroying their families. The money lost goes into the pockets of the casino owners and to associated services that have nothing to do with the welfare of society as a whole. (Recently, the gambling industry has introduced a new form of funcomputer card gameswhich, according to the media, are heartily welcomed by the public.)
In North America, gambling is becoming an increasingly popular idea with some Indian communities, who claim that it will bring prosperity to the reservation and help finance such projects as building schools and sport facilities and providing other social services. This idea is an example of the glaring contradiction between the claimed commitment of some Indian leaders to preserving the traditional way of life on one hand and their immediate acceptance of the products of modern technology (automobiles, automatic rifles with telescopic sights, TVs, home appliances, computers, etc.) and some of the vices of contemporary barbaric society on the other. Like any activity aimed at generating quick and easy money, gambling will be controlled not by communities as such, but by their "educated" leaders (usually lawyers), who would have a hard time resisting the temptation to use this "service" to their own advantage. Building a community on gambling is building a community on sin and vice. This will only further destroy the Indians' traditional way of life.
To sum it up, drug abuse, prostitution, and gambling must not be accepted as legal activities. The more accessible they are, the more people will get involved. Of course, society will never be able to eradicate them. As one saying goes, the pig will always find dirt to wallow in. At least, by making drugs, prostitution, and gambling illegal, we will, to a certain extent, protect the general population, and children in particular, from these insidious vices.
According to numerous statistics, crime and violence in most countries of the world have been steadily going in one direction only, namely, up. The figures, as acknowledged by experts, are disturbing, to say the least. Here are some of the statistics reported on radio and television:
We love to watch violent acts because we are barbarians, and in the process of consuming violent entertainment we become barbarians even more. We watch on with indifference as riots and street violence (expressions of human animality, herd mentality, and stupidity) break loose. Still, many politicians, government bureaucrats, psychologists, and other experts on violence find it more convenient not to share the view that violence on television affects people and children in particular. They call the evidence inconclusive, though children themselves often admit that their violent behaviour or the crime they have committed is a direct result of a TV programme they watched the night before. But how many studies and reports do we really need to convince us? As we know, the human brain is capable of more than just learning from experience. It is also capable of deduction, extrapolation, and foresight. Any reasonable-thinking person should be able to understand that watching violence and destruction cannot have any positive effects on the viewer.
In order to slow the progression of violence, we must deal with it very severely. Zero tolerance must be practised by the law and its representatives; no act, however small, that causes damage, harm, or pain should go unpunished. Murder and other very serious forms of crime should bring on capital punishment. Furthermore, we should ban violence in television and in movies, especially in children's programmes, such as cartoons and games.
The judicial system needs to be changed radically. Repeat offenders should automatically lose the privilege of parole, and those having committed a serious offense should not be eligible for it. By granting hardened criminals parole, the judicial system is showing its weakness and indifference to the victims and other concerned citizens. Courts must be able to take into account and use the accused's previous record.
Prisons should become self-supporting institutions where, instead of burning up their energy in gyms and watching the same kind of television programmes as have contributed to their criminal behaviour, inmates would work for the benefit of society.
In resolving political, economic, and other social conflicts, certainly everyone must have the right to voice his or her opinions and concerns, but it must be done in a civilised, humanistic way, not through violence. Even a good cause, such as advocated by environment-conscious organisations, does not justify law breaking and violence. If anything, those who are fighting for a good cause and break the law lose credibility. Civil disobedience, which is a form of violence wearing the mask of righteousness, has spread greatly in North America and throughout the world. Riots, uprisings, and protests are increasingly more frequent and violent. If we tolerate them, they will only become more commonplace. As Sidney Hook wrote in "Neither Blind Obedience nor Uncivil Disobedience" (p. 587), "More than ever must we stress the wisdom of expressing dissent and oppositionthe oxygen of free societywithin the forms of civic obedience. Legal dissent and legal opposition still remain the most effective means within a democracy of making ordered progress toward a better society." People such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have proven that positive results can be achieved without resorting to violence.
Though some people have made a hobby out of collecting guns and others use them for hunting and for sport, guns are made essentially with one purpose in mind: to kill. The mere presence of these killing tools is proof enough that our society is barbaric. As long as we tolerate guns, we are asking for trouble and contributing to violence. It is better to eliminate guns altogether than to spend valuable resources and effort to prevent the loss of human life as a result of their use. In the United States alone, there are over 200 million firearms. Children bring guns to school. Hunters use guns for the pleasure of killing animals. The firearms industry is a booming business in the United States, and lobbyists intend to keep it that way.
One of the arguments most favoured by representatives and supporters of the U.S. National Rifle Association is that "guns don't kill people; people kill people," which I find extremely stupid for the following reasons: (a) if we accept it as a principle, then we musn't object to free fabrication and possession of high explosives and deadly chemical agents because they don't kill people; and (b) murders are committed not only by criminals, but also (and some say, more frequently) by "ordinary" people who have lost control of themselves in a moment of great stress, as most of us may, and had easy access to a gun at that moment. And what about the mentally unstable who have little or no sense of responsibility, understanding, or control of their actions? What's to stop them from murder? Should they be punished and, if so, how? Or should people be isolated from society at the slightest suspicion of their being unbalanced? Their punishment would be little consolation to the bereaved family, anyway.
To break the vicious circle we must start somewhere. Small arms should be banned as the first step. They are particularly dangerous because they can be more easily concealed and used more often in the street than larger weapons. To protect their homes people don't really need small arms; rifles will do just as well. Eventually, guns must be prohibited altogether. Gun owners would be required to give up all the firearms they possess or face serious punishment. Only the police should be allowed to use guns and only in the line of duty. Those who love guns and enjoy shooting would be allowed to use them at shooting clubs where firearms and ammunition would be safe under lock and key. Reasonable people would give guns up for the greater benefit of society.
To many people, the death sentence is horrible and inhumane. It is seen as something barbaric and unworthy of our modern democracies. For those who do not give much thought to the root causes of crime and violence and have not themselves been victims of murderers, rapists, and other degenerates, it is easy to profess to be humane and forgiving. While advocating that remorseless beasts, who take pleasure in killing and harming human beings, be treated with love and care, they shut their eyes to the grief and suffering of those who have lost relatives and friends at the hands of these hardened criminals. Keeping dangerous criminals alive at the taxpayers' expense and prematurely releasing them on parole only causes more harm and suffering to society than would the execution of such people.
Our legal system is simply too soft. Drastic measures are required to
slow down the growth of crime. Keeping in mind that the purpose of justice
is to protect society, recidivist killers and murderersthey are monsters,
not human beingsmust be eradicated. This, in turn, would have a deterring
effect on would-be criminals. An execution, however, need not be as barbaric
as is currently practised (e.g., electrocution, hanging, and so on) but
should be made as quick and painless as possible.