Speaking ill of the dead: Dreyfus, Guildford Four Maguire Seven, and Jimmy Saville

Amy writes:

Some time after WWII my grand-mother said to my sister: "That Dreyfus man, really, he was guilty.  Wasn't he?" I would not say that my grand-mother was anti-Semitic or racist.  But I would say that the fact that the great-grand-son-in-law who lives in her house is Malagashi, and two of her descendants' families are half-Jewish feels like some kind of divine retribution.  My grand-father was a career officer. His wife must have thought something like this: "There is no way this little Alsatian Jew, of no consequence whatsoever, can be right and the French army wrong." 

But at least the Dreyfus Affair provoked a hurricane in France.

For a long time a dull mist hanged over the 1977 conviction of the Guildford four and Maguire seven. They were only little Irish people of no consequence and everybody needed badly to find culprits 3 years after the Guildford pub bombings.  The way their convictions were obtained and sustained does not make for pleasant reading.  They were acquitted only in 1989 in the case of the Guildford four, and 1991 in that of the Maguires.  I do not know how long it took before the Irish establishment listened to and was convinced by the evidence given by children abused by their priests.  It was more important for the bishops to protect the reputation of the Church than to protect the children and they were good at it. 

We know how long it took for the abuses of Jimmy Saville to come to light.  But it seems to me that, in every case, the greatest guilt belongs not so much to the French army, the English police, the forcibly celibate priests, the addicted Saville as to the establishment, and possibly ourselves, always prepared to give more credence to the mighty and powerful than to the little people.

Let us not renew this error.  Let us leave the police and judiciary to do their job in peace (and hope for the best!) while looking out for any sign of a witch-hunt incited by the powerful and mighty media.

Sense of Fairness: Nature or Nurture?

Last Saturday’s discussion centred on the question whether sense of fairness is a human instinct or indoctrinated by the establishment. There are examples of animals who displayed sense of fairness but we must distinguish this kind of animal “sense of fairness” from animal survival instinct. There is a long list of animal/human instincts: maternal, sexual, killing, survival, etc. Perhaps there is even a “fairness” instinct. After all it is the survival instinct which dictates to all other instincts.

What is fairness anyway? Most people are conscious from early age that FAIRNESS does not exist in the world. Children of this day of age have learned to be cynical as soon as they come into contact with adults.

Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that children were born with a conscience and a sense of fairness until they are corrupted by society. In some societies, children are subjected to corrupt influences from infancy. Do we remember from what age our parents told us not to trust any strangers? Apparently, in some societies, children are not only told to mistrust strangers, but they must also learn to lie and cheat as soon as they learn to speak.  Instead of trumpeting the moral value of Honesty, these adults on the contrary teach their children how to take advantage of the gullible “honest folks”. The notion of being “honest” and trusting has been taken as the evidence of Idiocy.

How can we talk about moral sense in the 21 century when everything is dictated by greed? Everything is for sale, including one’s own body. Children of today are either workers in factories or beggars on the street in the under-developed countries, or wannabe Lolitas in the over-developed countries. This is not a question of the exploitation of children, but rather a question of lost innocence.

Sense of fairness is a thing of the past. Nurture triumphed over nature.

Dilemme...

Que faire s’il on vous offre un travail bien payé dans un pays étranger, mais que vous ne pouvez pas emmener avec vous la personne que vous aimez ? Choisissez-vous l’argent ou l’amour? Ecoutez-vous votre tête ou votre cœur ?


Lequel des deux médecins que vous consultez croire s’ils vous donnent deux diagnostiques et deux traitements différents?

Qui, de sa femme ou de sa maîtresse, un homme devrait-il emmener en vacances?

On parle de dilemme quand on trouve difficile de prendre une décision entre 2 ou plusieurs choix, mais qu’aucun n’est défendable. Que faire face à un dilemme ? Peser le pour et le contre de la situation. Habituellement, on choisit la meilleure option, mais le résultat peut être regrettable.

D’une part, on peut penser que le processus de prise de décision dépend de nos origines culturelles et de nos valeurs, elles-mêmes composées également de nos préjugés. Ceux qui ont été élevés dans un environnement chrétien prennent souvent des décisions basées sur le jugement moral. « Faire ce qui est juste », ainsi on trouve l’harmonie en soi, sans recriminations. Beaucoup de décisions sont influencées par les origines sociales de la personne concernée, et des livres que cette même personne a lus : la culture apportera la solution.

« Si les décisions que l’on a prises sont influencées par la culture, est-ce qu’on peut trouver la solution dans les livres qu’on a lu ? » Ceux qui ont lu des œuvres classiques sont-ils capables de résoudre les dilemmes dans leur vie quotidienne en utilisant ce qu’ils ont appris dans les livres ? Dans la tragédie « Hamlet », le prince du Danemark faisait face à l’énorme dilemme qui consistait à tuer son oncle et sa mère pour venger son père. Comment ce type de tragédie peut-il nous offrir une solution applicable dans notre vie quotidienne?

D’autre part, on peut penser que la définition d’un dilemme n’est pas seulement un choix difficile voire impossible à faire, mais qu’il s’agit également de ce dont on a foi. L’ancien philosophe Grec parlait souvent du dilemme entre le corps et l’esprit. Croit-on en nos corps ou en nos cœurs ? Autre exemple : une mère préfère un de ses fils à l’autre, mais le second lui dit que son préféré a planifié de la tuer. Qui doit-elle croire entre lui et son préféré ?

Cependant, quelqu’un a souligné qu’un « dilemme » n’est pas seulement un problème qui peut être résolu en prenant simplement une décision. Un dilemme représente un problème difficile, qu’il est pratiquement impossible de résoudre. Quelques fois, une bonne décision peut aboutir sur un mauvais résultat, et vice versa (une mauvaise décision peut avoir de bons résultats). Par exemple, que l’Ouest commence une guerre avec l’Iran peut être vu comme un dilemme pour les gens qui ont leurs doigts posés sur les détonateurs. Il y a toujours un élément de prise de risque dans toute décision cruciale du fait que le futur est imprévisible. Les conséquences de nos décisions peuvent être inconcevables. Le projet du CERN sur l’expérimentation de la théorie du “Big Bang” est vue comme un dilemme, car si elle s’avère vraie, l’Humanité résoudrait le mystère le plus grand: les origines de l’univers. Si c'est un échec, ça n’engage pas seulement la perte financière et scientifique de ressources humaines colossales, mais de manière plus importante, il court le risque de détruire la planète entière (si les critiques sont justes).

L’idéogramme chinois pour le mot « dilemme » est composé de 2 lettres, l’un qui est le symbole de la lance, l’autre qui représente le bouclier : la lance attaque, le bouclier défend, aucuns des deux ne gagne : c'est ce qu’on appelle un « dilemme » 矛盾

 

Related article by Peter: Dilemmas (in English)

Suffering...

After our last session of café-philo in the V&A, I went for a tour of the Museum. Loitering in the Italian court for hours lost in thought. The topic of the day was still lingering in my mind: Is it justifiable to alleviate one’s perception of “suffering” by breaking one’s moral principles or values?

1. What is suffering?

Bound slave

I stopped in front of the statue of a bound slave by Michelangelo, the master of profound empathy for human suffering. The bound slave’s anguished facial expression and contorted torso struck a deep cord in my mind: “Man was born free. But everywhere, I see him in chains.” We suffer because we can never find the ultimate freedom that we desire. A few steps away, I saw the statue of a dying slave. The serene calm expression of the dying slave contrasts sharply with the pained grimace of the rebelling slave. Is death the ultimate alleviation of our suffering? I had that impression that the notion of “suffering” is an exclusive concept in Catholicism. Catholic art views human suffering as a redemption of our sins. Take the image of the Crucifixion of the Christ for example: a manifestation of a martyr who endured excruciating physical sufferings for his spiritual belief, preaching his flock to sacrifice their earthly pleasure for a happy after-life in Heaven, to avoid punishment in Hell.

Dying slave

Religion is a spiritual refuge for sufferers.  Religion is the Opium of the masses, the Prozac for the poor, the Soma for the Epsilon. It is interesting to know how the Oriental Buddhist view differs from the Occidental Christian view on the way of alleviation of sufferings. (I hope Peter can elaborate on this point.)

2. What are the causes of suffering?

Is physical suffering caused by poverty and illness mainly in the “Third World” given their deprived economic situation? Whereas mental suffering, depression and suicide a particular phenomenon of the post-industrial Revolution West, judging by the statistics of Prozac usage? asks Grace.

Not true, replies Christian.  Depression as a mental suffering was recorded long before Industrial Revolution in classical time as “melancholia,” a manifestation of one of the four "humours" in human body: black bile. (three other "humours" with corresponding temperaments: blood - sanguine, yellow bile - choleric, phlegm - phlegmatic). According to some 17th century writer, Melancholia is mainly caused by an unfulfilled desire, in other words, a longing for something lacking, it could be the lack of money, or lack of good health, or lack of love...

Depression has now been classified by medical profession as a physical “illness”, in other words, it is no longer a “mental suffering.” It is now in the same category as flu, headache, stomachache, toothache, gum infection, gastroenteritis, or any other infections which can be cured by popping a few antibiotics and Paracetamol.

3. To what extent can one alleviate one’s perception of “suffering”?

Gerry is more interested in finding answers to moral dilemmas in specific social context. Can one go against one’s moral principle even break the law in order to alleviate one’s suffering?

Christine thinks that those who had broken their moral principles to relieve their temporary suffering often live to regret their action afterwards. She offered an interesting example to illustrate her point: A group of air-crash survivors in the snow-bound mountains of Andes, owing to a moment of insanity triggered by starvation, succumbed to cannibalism to relieve their hunger pain. At the time, it seemed to them justifiable to eat another fellow human in order to save their own lives. Years later when they reflected on that episode, they could not resolve to ease their conscience and they lived the rest of their life in remorse.

Gerry’s question is more specific: Is it justifiable for an illegal immigrant, a penniless single mother with two starving children, to resort to prostitution? Is it lawful for a battered wife to kill her abusive husband in order to end her misery?

There is a distinction between a person who harms or destroys him/herself in order to alleviate his/her suffering, and a person who seeks to blame others for his own suffering, and tried to alleviate his pain at the expenses of others, says Malcolm.

Christine, full of anecdotes, picks out another example: the current NHS system offering to pay for Obesity sufferers to have elective operations such as liposuction and stomach binding at the expenses of other seriously ill patients who urgently needed life-saving operations. That is an example of transferring one’s own suffering to others.

The final question is: does prostitution actually alleviate or aggravate the suffering of the woman (or the man)? This is an entirely different kettle of fish. One can write a whole book on the subject: the battle of the sexes.
...

Forum: Question of tolerance in society

Strands of discussion:

• Should morality be separate from politics?
• Evolution of tolerance: homosexuality was not acceptable in the past but is widely recognised as equal to heterosexuality now. Would Paedophilia be accepted in the future?
• Morally unacceptable ideas or conduct can be drummed into people’s mind as acceptable – politicians often use marketing techniques to dress up a “bad” policy as a “good” policy.
• Part of political oppression is to persuade or coerce people to accept or reject certain concepts which are morally "wrong".

See also: Speaking ill of the dead

Forum: does altruism exist?

Strands of discussion:

• Selfishness inherent in human nature?
• Love, compassion, give and take a human instinct or moral sense?
• Is altruism a form of hypocrisy? e.g. gifts/presents are often seen as bribery or humiliation to the recipient. The donor of gift can be perceived as manipulator of power by using gift to control the behaviour of the receiver.
• Egoism v reciprocity

See also: Is human nature essentially egotistic or altruistic?

Forum: Can human beings live without conscience and consciousness?

Strands of discussion

• difference between consciousness and conscience
• instinct v conscience
• what is conscience – an inversion of guilt?
• what is instinct – sexual, maternal, survival, killing.
• were we born with conscience?
• moral sense – conscience – guilt is indoctrinated into our mind during our adult life.
• moral question: different countries have different standards of right and wrong