We tend to think - especially when it comes to politics - that people are driven by their ideology. They have an ideology and they then act according to it. However, this is only partly the case, and it's generally not how humans behave.
The Safety Harness
Take a parent with a small child. They're worried that the child may run off and get lost. Or that they may run into the road when a car's coming. Or that they may just run around and cause trouble in general.
If someone comes along and offers this parent a child safety harness, that tethers the toddler to the parent, it's likely they'll accept it and put it to use. They won't think: "Is it ethical to put my child on a lead?" or "Is this decision compatible with my overall political ideology?" They'll just do it. It's largely a practical decision.
They have the practical problem of the child running off. The safety harness solves that problem in practice.
Fast food Decisions
It's similar with eating animals (and I'm not arguing that it's wrong or right to eat animals here, I'm just using this example as it's a good one to use. Likewise I'm not necessarily saying it's right or wrong to put your child on a harness as above. These are just examples to illustrate how people make decisions in actuality).
Anyway ..if someone's walking through town and they feel hungry that hunger - i.e. that need for food - is just a problem that needs solving. If they see a fast food restaurant then that offers a solution to their problem.
Once again, it's just a practical solution to a practical problem. A mental assessment of the ideological merits of the decision usually does not take place.
If they choose an animal product not only is there no ideology involved, but the person probably isn't even thinking about the fact that an animal needs killing. It never enters their head. It's simply "I feel hungry ..this satiates my hunger."
If they are then confronted with the possible moral implications of their food choice they'll then struggle for some comforting narrative that justifies what they've already done. (People rarely just say "I eat animals because I care more about myself than I do the animals". As we like to feel like we're behaving in a good and moral way.)
So it'll usually be a case of: "Well, it's natural to eat animals," or "We need to eat animals, it's unhealthy not to," or, "If we didn't eat animals cows would go extinct," or "These cows have had a good life.." And so on and so forth. You get the picture.
Again though, the point is not that it's wrong or right to eat animals. This is to illustrate the fact that more often than not people reach for an ideological narrative to justify their behaviour. After the fact.
Humans have practical everyday problems confronting them in their everyday lives. They take practical steps to solve these problems. Ideological philosophising doesn't figure heavily, and when it does it often serves as a fig leaf to morally frame the actions already taken.
We all behave this way to some greater degree or other. We like to believe we operate to some core set of principles, but it's often the case that we believe what is convenient.
Cats
A further and final example to illustrate things is how we treat our pets. It's quite common for people to get their pets spayed and neutered.
If we were in the position of the cat - waking up from anaesthetic one day to find our balls had been surgically removed - we'd no doubt view our owners as incredibly evil. However, cat owners aren't in fact evil (at least I don't think they are). When a pet owner takes their soon-to-be neutered cat to the vets they're not rubbing their hands with glee like some evil supervillain. Relishing the suffering and humiliation they're about to inflict on the poor cat.
They're doing it for purely practical reasons.
They don't want their cat making babies. Ergo they're stopping that from happening.
They've been offered a solution to their problem and they've utilised it.
Again, politics, morals, ideals don't come into it; and if those things do it comes only via the pangs of emotion or guilt that creep up upon the pet owner as they whisk their cat off in its little cage.
Feelings that are quickly satiated by post hoc moral excuses: "Well, we can't afford to look after baby cats - we had to do it." Along with some newly bought goodies for the cat. As if the squeaky toys and pet treats will somehow outweigh the loss of the body parts.
Again though, the pet owners aren't evil. They love the cat. (Not as much as they love themselves). But they do love it, and they believe in their hearts they love it. They'll even cry and be heartbroken when it dies.
Still, that didn't stop them cutting the cat's balls off.
So, do you still think our rulers are EVIL?
When we consider how we exercise power over the animals that feed us, or the pets that we love so dearly, or even our own children it provides a window into the mindset of those who rule us. Be they democratic leaders, technocrats or tyrants.
Like ourselves they face everyday practical problems. Both in their own lives and in their management of society at large.
If they have the practical problem of people committing crime, and putting every citizen on a 'child safety harness' solves this problem, then more likely than not they'll use it.
Likewise if too many little baby people are being born - just like the cats that were having too many little baby kittens - why would they not think to neuter and spay some of the humans? It might sound strange, but why not. As king of the home you did it to your cat to manage your household affairs - and without a second thought. So why wouldn't your masters do it to manage this wider household we call human society.
Sure, you can view all the things we see happening in the world as being driven by ideologies (communism, capitalism, technocracy, religious ideology). Or even as being driven by manifest evil itself.
However, the reality is most things are driven primarily by practicalities - and it's often all incredibly banal and thoughtless. If you fail to understand this you'll never understand the people you perceive to be your enemies.
In reality they're simply people that have needs, desires and problems that need solving.
If you're the neutered cat you may view what's been done to you as evil - and it may very well be evil - but if you think your owners are evil you are wrong and you really don't understand them. They believe they are good and they believe they love you. Even when they're cutting your balls off.
That's well argued and true to an extent, but doesn't really examine the problem of evil, as much as it just reiterates Arendt's banality of evil observation.
ReplyDelete