Postmodern Attitudes Toward Life

People have very different attitudes toward life. Many conservatives believe that abortion and physician-assisted suicide is murder yet they support the killing of convicted criminals (death penalty) and support war which kills thousands of innocent bystanders. On the other hand, some liberals support physician-assisted suicide and abortion rights yet condemn capital punishment and war. I see much hypocrisy when it comes to this topic of life--both what it is, and when it is acceptable to end it.

Can we have a consistent pro-life ethic as opposed to this buffet version that American culture currently subscribes to? Deepak Chopra offers up these thought-provoking questions in a post on the Huffington Post:

The first step could be to begin questioning our ideas about acceptable slaughter by any side. Is a bombing raid on a city where the majority of the dead turn out to be innocent women and children -- otherwise called "collateral damage" -- acceptable killing?

Is a beheading less acceptable?

Why is killing a person in uniform more acceptable than a person in civilian clothing?

Who makes the rules about "civilized vs. uncivilized" killing? Can we begin to question these rules?

I think most people would give answers that expose an underlying bias. This is the bias that of course "we" are good and mostly right while "they" are bad and mostly wrong. It's on that basis that unacceptable slaughter continues on all sides.

The killing of poor civilians has become perfectly acceptable when we are fighting a war. Those three letters W-A-R seem to justify the deaths of innocents. Warped fundamentalist interpretations of religion are also to blame. Take the Islamic jihadists who last year beheaded Nicolas Berg while screaming "God is great".

It's difficult for me to accept any rational justification for murdering someone whether it be for national security, religion or politics. I am reminded of Gandhi's promotion of non-violence:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Yes I admit that this one of those silly idealistic posts in which I wonder if humans could ever abondon violence and work towards global peace. However, I grow more cynical by the day. I am coming to believe that the natural state of humankind is war à la Thomas Hobbes.

I apologize for the heavy nature of the topic this Saturday morning, but it is an important one that deserves some thought. Matt at Tattered Coat also offers up some interesting reflections on this matter.

Comments

[Arvin Hill]

It is not buffet-style ideology at work here.

On closer examination, what begs discussion (to my mind, anyway) isn't hypocrisy or inconsistency in matters of "life" -- but the notion of collective punishment, as our friend, Spartacus, recently noted.

[Arvin Hill]

When I reread the first sentence of my previous comment, it sounds a little too black & white.

You're right - there is a kind of buffet-style ideology at work. I just don't believe it's the real issue underlying your concerns. As usual, I may well be wrong. Those concerns are, after all, yours, and I'm not so arrogant as to proclaim them illegitimate or unwarranted.

[Agitprop]

That is correct Arvin. Buffet-style ideology is not my major concern. It is more a symptom of American values, but not the driving force behind the madness. The madness I am more concerned with in general is what you describe as "the cycle of death".

That brings me to Gandhi's quote: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Until we as a global society realize this truth, we will continue to decay into chaos and endless war...a state of nature in which life is nasty, brutish and short (unless you are a rich American).

[Kate]

Great post, Agit. I know how you feel. How can you wake up this morning, however glorious a summer Saturday may be, without questioning the whole business when the numbers keep ratcheting up?

The whole idea of adding more misery and violence to the world bothers me. There's enough without us doing it to each other. I wish we could work toward peace, not war. But then, there would be no way for the powers that be to keep their power.

I'm not sure about the buffet-style stuff exactly because of the abortion issue, but that's just me. I don't think a fetus is a person. The mother is a person, however, and an abortion performed in a backroom with primitive tools has a very good chance of killing her. I don't really see a conflict there. I hate that our discussion of choice concerns the fetus and not the woman. She's the living, breathing person after all.

But enough of that. I hope you find a way to enjoy a little beauty this weekend. I'm always amazed that it's out there.

Take care --

[Agitprop]

That's right Kate. The powers that be maintain their power by oppressing others. As for the abortion issue, it can get tricky, but I was simply laying out the typical Left-Right rhetoric on the issue. I happen to support legal abortion.

[Kate]

Yeah, both sides are drifting into easy absolutism. As if there are only two answers to any question! It drives me crazy.

I followed that link to Chopra's blog. The comments are pretty interesting.

Take care, Agitprop --

[The Heretik]

Nicely imaged, well worded. Some of your best sturff yet.

[Agitprop]

Thank you Heretik Sir.

[reasoninrevolt]

Hi Agitprop. I don't think an appeal to peace is ever silly. The Ghandi quote is great. I do think that you are posing the debate in somewhat too simplistic Left vs Right terms. I'm certain that if you research the history of the positions of both sides that you will find well thought out (if not always well reasoned) positions. I beleive that one problem we see is that folks blindly follow ideology without exploring the historical reasons for a position. Finally, I find it odd to put the pro-choice position on a "attitudes towards life" spectrum where the opposite end includes pro-war zealots and fundamentalists. This is a false opposition and is one that the Right wishes to promote.

[Agitprop]

Looking back at this post, I probably shouldn't have mentioned abortion, because that is not what I was intending to discuss. I was intending to jump off from Deepak Chopra’s discussion about the hypocritical views Americans have towards life and death, mainly killing in war. That said; let's deal with the abortion topic for a moment.

I believe it is fair to include this issue in the “attitudes toward life” spectrum. The abortion issue is constantly raised when discussing issues of life in America.

I agree that the Right uses Orwellian means to describe their position on this issue. Instead of calling themselves anti-abortion or anti-choice or anti-women’s rights, they cast themselves in a positive light as “pro-life”. However, don’t forget there are some on the Left who are also “pro-life”, more often for religious reasons. For instance, I know several pro-life Catholics who are strong left-wingers on almost every other issue. It may just be silly ideology that forces these people to adhere to a “pro-life” point of view, but we can’t write them off completely. It might be ideology to some, but it is held as truth to them.

I have intentionally cast this debate in simple Left-Right terms because that is how it exists in American political discourse. In order to move beyond this narrow spectrum we must first understand its reality and simplicity. I’m glad that this post has elicited the discussion that it has. I think we as a society need to move beyond these hypocritical ideologies which say the following:

80 innocent British civilians die in London terrorist attack = bad

2,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians die in first 60 days of war = collateral damage (Oops!)

I think I'll continue with this series. It leads to good discussion.

[Kate]

I think because so many years have past since the days of back-alley abortions that people forget that abortion rights was and continues to be a pro-life issue, the life here being that of the woman. Since today women can have a safe abortion, administered by a doctor, the debate has been refocused onto the fetus. I think this is a shame. If we lose the legal right to have safe abortions, then women will once again die. Will "pro-life" liberals really be "pro-life" then, or will they join their right-wing friends who think the woman's life is worth less than the fetus's? The argument to make abortion illegal is a pro-death argument, which, sadly, fits in with the right's ideology. I guess they're not hypocrites after all!

Okay. Sorry. I didn't mean to start in on this again. It's just that we have no sense of history most of the time and it frustrates the hell out of me. I'm so thankful that my mom and other feminists fought for our rights. They are the most "pro-life" people I've ever known.