The principle that I believe should
always be kept by people is the principle of humanity. Although The Road
defined staying humane as not resorting to chaos and animal instinct, I believe
that it is much more than that. In the world today, the circumstances aren't nearly
as dire as during the apocalypse and therefore the definition of humanity can
be extended further. Keeping humane means lending a hand when needed. It means not
assuming the worst when meeting a stranger and being open to what they have to
say. It means not ever having to resort to measures like thievery and murder
because you know that there is help for any problem you may have next door. Keeping
humane means being a good person as often as possible because there is
absolutely no reason to be a bad one. It is inevitable that there will be
plenty of disputes and disagrees among people everywhere, but there is always a
solution without resorting to pointless bloodshed. The solution will certainly
not be what either party envisioned at the start, but it will be a compromise
on both ends. It will be a compromise for the greater good and it will be attained
through humane means.
There is a certain intangible thing
that connects every single human being together. Some call it a heart or a soul
and others call it a conscience. Whatever it is called, it is the thing that
makes being humane so much easier than being cruel and primitive. It can be
ignored and defied but only with ill will, malevolence, and practice. I believe
that man is truly good if pushed to his limit and as a result, will find it
difficult to be unkind to others. And because of this it seems pointless and
just wrong to let go of one’s humanity. When a person maintains their humanity
through whatever they may face, great things happen. When the whole world
maintains its humanity throughout it’s history, miracles happen.
Ohoho a new blog post to comment on. I respectfully disagree with the second paragraph you have there (as you probably know from my post if you read it). You are generalizing the whole of humankind into a set of parameters that society projects. There may be people who are sadists and take pleasure in hurting others. There may be people who have known only a life of cruelty and have a different idea of what being humane is. When you say that "man is truly good if pushed to his limit", I was wondering if man is good if pushed past his limit.
ReplyDeleteThere is a sense of balance in the events of life and tipping that balance can result in two outcomes: a "good" person, or a "bad" person, and I use those terms very loosely. "Good" can mean that the person leads a relaxed life with little stress from decisions that may "define" him or her as "humane" or not. "Bad" can mean that the person made one or more difficult decisions and chose the easy way out of things instead of taking the courage to step up to the responsibilities of his or her position.
Also, maintaining one's humanity may not always lead to "great things". It depends on the person and the circumstances he or she is in. For example, if I steal from an elderly person, the authorities won't ask why I stole. I might have a family to feed and no other way to provide for them, but that doesn't make me exclusive from the law or society (and humankind) and its biased views.
Let's talk about America. Yay, America! ...Right? Maybe. More specifically, the first use of the atomic bomb. We all have learned about the general effects of radioactive fallout, correct? So having our knowledge, why do some people still consider the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revenge for Pearl Harbor? Japan started the war in the Pacific and the Soviet Union and America ended it. Is it humane to drop the atomic bomb on the enemy, knowing that it will end more lives than conventional bombing and lead to health risks such as the reduction of certain blood cells that will contribute the blood's lack of ability to congeal and therefore the deaths of most civilians present in the two cities? If you can come up with a sustainable enough argument, explain why two? Why not just one?
(Sorry for the long comment, but I had a lot to say and probably more right now but I'll spare you the essay.)
I completely disagree that being humane is easier than being cruel or primitive.
ReplyDeleteIf being humane is easy, then why have we been primitive for so much longer than we have been humane? Who could become inhumane if it had to be "learned?" Would then no one learn it because there is no one to learn it from? Do you not believe that it is incredibly easy to lose this principle under duress? I would argue that being humane is something that we have somehow managed to learn through living in societies for many millenia.
I agree with the principle, however general it may be. I recognize that it is what makes us different from animals. I disagree with considering it to be something that humans innately possess.