Islanders & God

Dear philosophers,

our conversation last Saturday centred on the subject of God.  Most of you would say, Come on! Not again! How many times have we approached the very same topic?   But the question is asked in a different way this time: How to describe God to a people on an island?  - sounds like a title for a creative writing course, that would trigger vivid imagination.  As explained by Paul, who proposed the question, it is inspired by a book he read: Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes by Daniel Everett.  The book is about an isolated tribe of Amazonian Indians (Hence the idea of an island) whose language Everett had learned in order to translate the bible for them.  At the end Everett concluded that these people had no need for a god.  In fact he lost his own faith - a proselytizer has become a proselyte himself.

Our friend Amy writes: 

I had a strange experience recently.  I watched the dvd of a film I had seen some 30 years ago, had much admired and had quoted frequently ever since: Jacques Tati's Playtime.  Well, none of these episodes of which I had such a vivid memory were in fact as I remembered them.  Slowly but surely my mind had twisted the images to make them fit my argument.

I observed the same kind of distortions at last Saturday café-philo.  The question was how to describe God to people who had no notion of him/her/it.  While I was moderately interested in the answer to such a question I was fascinated by the way it was interpreted.  The majority of comments were about religion,  conversion, domination, none of which had to do with the subject. 

I was brought up in a French protestant family in which religion was strictly confined to Sundays when my parents went to church and the children to Sunday school.  God was never mentioned during the week.  My atheism is in the image of my parents' religion: mild and tolerant.  I am always surprised by the strident atheism I keep encountering in G.B. (never in France, which does not mean it does not exist).  I can only wonder if such atheists have been force-fed religion in their childhood.

Amy

Do we need religion?



Man cannot live on bread alone

The question debated last Saturday (1 October) has been asked many times before. Jesus answered: “one must not live on bread alone, but on every word coming out of the mouth of God.”

We need religion like we need music, art, books, theatre, films and other creative and imaginative works. Religion is part of our spiritual world.

We need religion because religion teaches us what’s right what’s wrong and it acts like moral codes which form the basis of law and order for the maintenance of a cohesive society.

We need religion because our desire of adhering to a group of people helps us find our exclusive identity and destiny.

But we also have our doubts:

• Is religion a form of superstition as it appeals to the irrational part of our psyche?
• Is religion an impediment to the progress of science, since Creationist view conflicts with the Evolutionist theory?
• Does the concept of “sanctity of life” interfere with individual’s personal choice?
• Can different religions co-exist in harmony?
• Was religion the main source of human conflicts and genocides?
• Apart from main stream religions (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc) are these not also religions - the likes of Scientologist Church, Free Masonry, Mafia, Klu Klux Klan, Money Worshipping? 

Quote:
“It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

What shaped European civilization?

The original question proposed by Ramon « what is European civilization » was intended to define the identity of European civilization. Ramon laid out what he thought was the basis of European civilization: Christianity and Democracy.

Several opinions diverged as to whether Christianity truly represents European civilization. One opinion is that southern Europe where Catholicism prevails tends to have larger number of pious churchgoers than north-western Europe, which has been increasingly embracing secularism since the 20th century.

Another opinion stated that Christianity was not the only religion that shaped European civilization. So-called European civilization is an amalgamation of many different cultural and commercially-based identities. It was this openness to absorb many different influences from outside Europe which made European civilization so advanced in the 19th and 20th century.

Michael remarked that “from a historical perspective, violence can be a motor of civilization”. Ramon disagreed by saying that the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century was definitely not a “motor of civilization”. The Mongols were “Barbarians”. I wonder what Ramon thinks of the violent history of Spanish conquest of Americas, was it driven by the "motor of civilization" or by greed for gold?  Does he think that violence committed in the name of Christianity is then no longer "Barbaric"?

Several participants pointed out that the Eurocentric view was partly to blame for the ills of the 18th and 19th centuries, namely racism, slavery and colonialism. It is therefore controversial to have any delusions of the superiority of European civilization by using Christianity as a basis or standard for European identity.

What is civilization anyway? Christian explains it denotes people living in cities, who do not have to work on land to make a living, so that they can devote their time to develop ideas.

By comparing European philosophies with ideologies from other parts of the world, I noticed one distinctive feature of European (enlightened, non-religious) thinking lies in its emphasis on individual freedom, whereas in many other parts of the world, especially in the East Asia, the traditional thoughts on the mechanism of maintaining a coherent society emphasises obedience to authority (e.g. Confucianism), or passive escapism (e.g. Buddhism), or worshipping an invisible God or several gods (most other formal religions).

Looking back in history, religion has never been the exclusive motor for the advancement of civilization. Religion is often a tool used by the State to make people not to think for themselves but to follow the doctrines from the “holy scripture.” It plays primarily the role of “brain-washer“ or “mind control”. Although religion was a source of inspiration for art and music in the early stages, it can equally act as a repressive regime that hampers social and economic progress, restricts the creativity of artists and suppresses the freedom of ideas by individuals.

Instead of flagging up Christianity as the main fibre of European civilization, Ramon should quote the Renaissance of the 16th century and the Enlightenment of the 18th century as the most important achievements of European civilization. Without these two historical movements, of which the main aims were to liberate people’s mind from the repression of religion, to break away from the authoritarian voice of the Church that ruled Europe for centuries, Europe would still be living in the Dark Ages.

Faut-il désobéir pour exister vraiment ?

Etienne Lécroart. Paru dans la revue Alternatives Non Violentes

Lors de notre Café Philo du Samedi 11 Juin, il a été argumenté que la question de la désobéissance était liée à la notion de respect de soin et donc de choix: puis-je garder mon intégrité personnelle ou encore une qualité de vie en obéissant? Exister, c'est s'affirmer comme le définit Shéhérazade. Bien sûr, cela dépend également à qui ou à quoi j’obéis.

Dans le cas d'une démocratie, c'est la puissance de la majorité qui a fait voter les lois qui nous régissent. Désobéir dans une société est le reflet de s’affirmer contre la pensée de la majorité. L'histoire a même vu que ce sont les gens qui se rebellent font avancer les sociétés, et qu’il faut que certains désobéissent pour qu'elles existent. Les lois n'ont-elles pas été crées pour assurer la cohésion d'un groupe d'individus, et rendre possible leur cohabitation?

La notion de désobéissance est liée dans nos sociétés au châtiment, à la punition, et comme Gaby l'a rappelé, Dieu a puni le serpent pour avoir encouragé Adam et Eve à croquer le fruit du savoir. Les sociétés ont besoin de ce dictateur, même s'il apparait sous la forme d'un dieu omnipotent.

Il serait faux cependant de considérer le conformisme comme une obéissance. En fait, certains sont déterminés à défendre le conformisme, et ne se contente pas de vivoter: ils sont actifs dans leur obéissance. A l'inverse, il y a le conformisme passif, celui qui ne se discute pas mais s'applique.

Alors que les régimes oppresseurs s'effritent les uns après les autres, on voit la mise en application de la possibilité de désobéir, décrite selon André Glucksmann comme « une forme de responsabilité et appelle à davantage de responsabilités ».

Quelle est la question fondamentale?

Lors de notre dernier Café Philo en français, une question purement philosophique a été choisie pour thème de réflexion : Qu’est-ce que la question fondamentale ? En fait, qu’est-ce qu’une question fondamentale ? Surtout, y- a-t-il une question et comment savoir si elle est fondamentale ? La complexité de la vie génère toujours des questions, alors comment faire la différence entre une question importante et une question fondamentale ?

La mort est le principe essentiel qui régit notre existence. En effet, lors de son dernier soupir, l’homme se demande souvent « ai-je accompli quelque chose dans ma vie ? » Pour les scientifiques, la question fondamentale est « qu’est-ce que la matière ? » ou encore « qu’est-ce que le monde ? » D’autres questions telles que « « comment vivre ensemble ?» ou « combien je vaux ? » ont également été évoquées. Janet suggère quant à elle que la question fondamentale régit la planète et ne s'arrête pas à l’être humain. Qu’elle est en fait la question dont la réponse apparait être la réponse à toutes les autres questions. Mais y a-t-il un grand thème qui détermine notre existence ?

Plusieurs points de vue ont été adoptés dans notre débat. Peut-être y a-t-il quelque chose de divin dans notre existence? A l’inverse de ce qui a été suggéré en premier lieu, même si l’on pense que Dieu existe, il n’est pas la réponse fondamentale à notre existence. Bien au contraire, encore plus de questions sont générées que s’il on ne le pense pas: on peut se questionner sur son statut d’omnipotence et d’omniprésence par exemple. Christian aborde même la possibilité que Dieu, après avoir créé le monde l’ai abandonné car ce sont les lois de la nature qui le règlent.On peut même dans le cadre de notre réflexion aborder la question de l’athéisme par acte de foi : on peut prendre des décisions sans avoir à le faire.

Julien pense que ce n’est pas la question, mais la réponse qui importe. Il va même plus loin en discernant 3 critères qui déterminent la question fondamentale : l’extérieur (le monde), nous personnellement, et les autres. La question fondamentale dépend donc du contexte, des circonstances, et également de l’état de conscience dans lequel nous sommes quand on se pose cette question. Le passé détermine ce que nous sommes donc nous sommes le résultat des choses qui gouvernent nos choix. Si on n’intègre pas toutes ces choses, cela devient une cause de stress.

Plusieurs concepts et théories ont été évoqués pour illustrer nos arguments variés : Darwin et sa théorie de l’évolution, la théorie des cordes (théorie du tout) ou encore le bouddhisme. Cependant, le schéma de Maslow illustre l’importance du contexte et du sujet. En effet, à chaque niveau, la question fondamentale va changer avec les besoins essentiels de la personne et de sa position sur l’échelle sociale. Ce peut-il que ce ne soit ni la question ni la réponse qui soit fondamentale, mais le sujet? Ou plus particulièrement sa réactivité et ses actions face à ces besoins ? L’homme a bien su avec le temps créer des lois pour concrétiser une autorité quand elle n’existait pas et pour défendre des valeurs…

Le mot "fondamental" dangereux car il ne prend pas en compte à la fois les aspects publiques et politiques. Il est donc difficile de définir ce qu’est la question fondamentale, car il n’y a pas de consensus dans cette question : on pense qu’il y a une question fondamentale ou non. Est-elle égale ou non à la métaphysique ? Une question métaphysique n’est pas forcement fondamentale car la réponse n’aura pas trop d’importance. D’autre part, si on a une réponse à la question fondamentale, on a plus besoin de réfléchir, de se poser de questions, et cela réduit l’existence à très peu. Au cours de notre conversation, beaucoup de personnes sont revenues sur leur propre question fondamentale, ce qui montre que la question reflète la personnalité de chacun. Et pour ceux qui désirent continuer à chercher cette question fondamentale, « Le succès c'est d'aller d'échec en échec sans perdre son enthousiasme ». (Winston Churchill).

Multiculturalism vs Monoculturalism




The School of Athens by Raphael includes the philosopher/scientist Averroës from Andalusia. 

 I was surprised when our friend Ramon announced at the end of the debate (5 Feb 2011) that the answer to his question is « No, multiculturalism will not work in our society. » Surely, he should have noticed that our café-philo itself is a microcosm of a multicultural society where people from different corners of the planet come and join the debate every Saturday forming a friendly social network in a convivial atmosphere. What’s more surprising is that Ramon, as a Spaniard, seemed to have forgotten the colourful past of his native country where multiculturalism was a unique feature unknown elsewhere in Medieval Europe.


Forest of columns of Patio de los Leones, Alhambra, Granada



The Islamic Spain from the 8th century to the 15th century is a quintessence of a culturally rich, diverse, and thriving civilization, and a melting pot of ethnic allegiances. The arrival of Muslims in Iberia in 711 CE created an enlightened culture in which three Abrahamic traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- co-existed, interacted, and flourished. By 732, the Islamic Empire united most of the peninsula, calling it Al-Andalus. During this time, Al-Andalus witnessed the emergence of major figures, the birth of vital cities, the rise and demise of ruling dynasties, decisive battles, and an important role for women.



Cordoba



Jews and Christians worshipped freely without fear of persecution. The native Christian population governed according to the Germanic customs of the Visigoths. Meanwhile, small Jewish communities inhabited such key cities as Toledo and Córdoba.



Spiritual beauty of Alhambra



The Arabs were fewer in number but after the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba, new Muslim immigrants including bureaucrats, scholars, merchants, and artists from Egypt, Syria, Persia, and other eastern lands made their way to Al-Andalus to seek their fortunes in a distant land that had quickly acquired a reputation for beauty and abundance. As they began adapting to settled life, they established trades, raised crops, and interacted with the local populace with increasing frequency. They sought familial alliances and marriage with Hispani-Roman women. 


Conversely, Christians retained their faith but increasingly adopted Arabic language and Muslim customs. They came to be called Mozarabs. Their daughters often bridged the social worlds of the rulers and the ruled.

This coherent multicultural society lasted over four centuries until the Reconquista by the Christian resurgence from the North in late 11th century. Since then, the fertile land of the south was overshadowed by religious repression and persecution known as Papal Inquisition, later as “Spanish Inquisition” ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave, throughout the period from the 15th to the 19th century.

The former Mosque in Cordoba (the 3rd largest mosque in the world), known by its Spanish name, Mezquita. After the conquest, the Christians built a cathedral in the middle of this large complex, so it is now two sacred sites in one.

Assumptions

Settling down into my seat on the underground I took a quick look round and noted, accompanied by that delightful frisson engendered by a fix of cultural pessimism so necessary for a revolutionary, that nearly all my fellow passengers where playing mindlessly with their mobile phones or texting messages of the utmost banality to recipients who were no doubt equally unaware of the crisis faced by global capitalism. Before opening my book which happened to be on the Baader Meinhoff group which I knew would shortly be giving give me frissons of a far more problematic nature I noticed a young lady of Moslem appearance quietly and intently reading her own little book. For a moment in time we were united against the philistines around us but of course this happy state of affairs did not survive my weakness for cultural stereotyping that of course completely subverts my other belief that races and nations do not have essences that are capable of resisting historic and political developments. I thought to myself with an unbecoming smugness grounded it has to be said in enlightenment values that I bet, a secular form of Pascal's wager of course, that she is reading some holy book. Eventually after some considerable effort and a neglect of my own book I was able to confirm this was the case. However I was rather troubled by my finding. Was the proof of my assumption further proof that the young lady was somehow more determined , in a philosophical sense, than I was in her choice of book and if so could it further be the case that she is less free than me and for what it is worth the other passengers on the train whose activities were only really determined by their choice of means of communicating rather than the content of their message. (I sense the ghost of McLuhan hovering over me). Yes I thought it does for I doubted that the young lady, if she had been so minded, would have been able to guess the nature of the book I was reading simply by looking at me as the potential choices I had were almost unlimited including a holy book. I have previous in this area as I have in the past noticed that Africa looking ladies generally when reading on the tube opt for the Bible. So far one might think so prejudiced, though a prejudice based on empirical evidence. Anxious then to entertain an antithesis I considered that the women have just as freely chosen to read the Koran (or commentary which this was in the case of my fellow traveller) or Bible as I have my book. But I have a nagging doubt that their choice involved the consideration of other literary possibilities that were eventually rejected as having merit but less immediate relevance to their lives. But in what way does this matter, if at all? I would have liked to have to talked to the young lady but of course being British I knew I would have to be wait to be introduced and as she got out after a couple of stops that was highly unlikely to happen.

On a practical note.I said I'd try to keep a record of subjects proposed at Cafe. Should anybody remember any from say the last few months pleased let me know.I am only interested in the English speaking though on reflection it would be intriguing to compare them with the French language sessions

The Beauty of Fig Leaves

The theme last Saturday focused on “Religion” as a follow-up of the previous topic of “Suffering”. Since the majority of the café-philosophers are self-proclaimed Atheists, the topic of religion seemed to be an easy target of ridicule.  The God, our all mighty divine Providence received a fair dose of thrashing… The quotes of the day:

“The only difference between Religion and Cults is the amount of real estate they own.”

“God is triangular.”

“God is our absentee landlord.”

“God is a dog spelt backwards.”

“Christian art is full of fig leaves.”

Let’s have a look at some more Fig Leaves:

For this topic, I would recommend this website: Atheism & Agnosticism.

I would also recommend the four articles written by our co-author Peter on philosophical theories, critical thinking, and philosophy of religion (see articles below).

Our next session will be in French.  I hope our Francophone friends can make some contributions to this blog in the language of Descartes or in the language of Shakespeare.

Au plaisir de vous lire...

Religion, Suffering and the Pursuit of Wealth (2)

Posted by Peter:

Some Critical Thinking issues
This entry is one of an occasional series to raise Critical Thinking issues associated with Café Philo topics, or other discussion threads. The origin for this entry comes from Café Philo on 28/08/10, and subsequent blog ‘Religion, Suffering and the Pursuit of Wealth’.

1. Straw Man fallacy
Statements criticising the pursuit of wealth often produce apoplectic responses from free-market fundamentalists, economic neo-conservatives and similar demographics. A typical response is to accuse the speaker of wanting everyone to go back to living in caves, repudiating the technical / medical advances of the last two centuries. This is an example of a Straw Man fallacy i.e. deliberately mis-representing someone’s position, and then attacking this distorted position. In fact it is perfectly consistent to wish for a basic standard of living for everyone, taking advantage of core benefits of modern science, while still criticising the pursuit of money as the ultimate goal. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is an example of a more balanced view of what it means to be human.

Two associated ideas aiming to justify the pursuit of wealth are also open to challenge, but are not developed here for space reasons. (1) Trickle-down effect (2) Facilitation of philanthropy.

2. Cognitive Dissonance (holding inconsistent thoughts) / Information Bias
Particularly popular amongst certain sections of the American religious community, the theory of the Prosperity Gospel takes wealth as a sign of God’s approval, thereby attempting to square the unsquareable circle between right-wing economics and the Christian ethic ‘love of money is the root of evil’. It provides the glue between religious fundamentalists (representing God…) and the Republican Party (representing wealth and privilege…). There is no shortage of Biblical references for the polar opposite to this view, so Information Bias (ignoring these embarrassing counter-examples) has to be used in order to avoid Cognitive Dissonance (the Bible can’t be both pro and against the pursuit of wealth).

3. Slippery Slope fallacy
An interesting recent example of the Catholic Church’s attitude to material wellbeing comes from the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America during the 1970s/1980s. The motive power for this came from a core of brave Catholic priests, looking to improve the economic situation of their people in the face of huge disparities of wealth and power, under oppressive right-wing regimes. Their natural allies were left-wing parties. Led by Pope John Paul, the Church institution (allegedly) suppressed this movement, on the basis it would inevitably lead to atheistic left-wing governments, if successful. The Slippery Slope fallacy says that taking one step on a certain path will inevitably lead to a (worst-case) scenario. Better to support repressive right-wing regimes, nominally Church supporting.

Religion, Suffering and the Pursuit of Wealth

Posted by Peter:  Further thoughts from Café Philo on 28/08/10

“All life is suffering”, the Buddha is reputed to have said. In Christianity the Sermon on the Mount promises future rewards for those suffering now: “Blessed are the poor, meek etc.”

Many countries with a strong religious ethos are, or were historically, economically poor – and religious / political authorities have certainly used the promise of post-death riches to make a virtue of necessity (and stop the peasants revolting…). But can one conclude that religious statements on suffering are contingent on economic contexts, and that once living conditions improve they lose their relevance ? Is the pursuit of wealth the final answer ?

An expanded definition of suffering suggests an alternative interpretation. Major religions have traditionally seen the pursuit of material wealth as inimical to spiritual development, but as part of a wider warning against the idea that true happiness can be found through satisfying the demands of the ego (self) in the external world. Wealth is just one of several traps: others include power, reputation, fame, comparison with other people, defining one’s value by virtue of a role (e.g. job title, parent), or by adherence to a system of ideas (religious / political).

Of course some of these things can be pleasurable, even creditable. However suffering comes because (1) A person may not achieve any of these external factors of validation (2) Even if they do, the happiness is often transitory or unsatisfactory - a loved one leaves, we buy something but soon get bored and have to buy something else etc. Suffering, defined as the inevitable result of over-emphasising the needs of the ego in the external world, is as big an issue for a rich person as for a poor one - though the external trigger issues might be different.

The proposed alternative is to go within the mind and seek peace / happiness by accessing one’s deep Self (spirit, divine essence, Buddha nature, God, Tao, atman etc.). It is interesting to note that, whereas theologies tend to divide both within and between religions, the mystical traditions of major religions are more tolerant and tend to unify around the concept of ‘one God, many paths’.

There are many Critical Thinking issues that arise in discussions on ‘the pursuit of wealth’. Some will be discussed in a separate blog entry.

Crucifixion

I have always had a problem with it.I would welcome an explanation as to this. Did Christ exist in some form before he took an earthly one. Also without in any way defending the practice of crucifying people and bearing in mind his moment of doubt if he knew he was Son of God he must have somehow known he wasn't going to die and certainly God did, given he must have planned it all, so what sort of sacrifice was it. As an atheist I feel millions of humans have suffered much more than Jesus did so I resent the elevation of his above all else but then I would wouldn't I.

It is a pity that it is well nigh impossible for non believers to engage intellectually with believers. I don't mean because one is superior to another but as there can never be an agreed point of departure from which the discussion can develop. However I suppose it would be interesting to have a session devoted to conversions from one state of mind to another as this would be the closest we could come to exploring the differences.

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.
...