Power
We live in a society that renders us increasingly powerless. Decisions are made for us through our governments on what we can and cannot do. With the domination of land on an internationally accepted scale we leave room for the forming of such governments that feel entitled to dictate entire rules and laws to the individuals inhabiting that land. This is as true for the Eastern countries of which the Western world condemns the lack of individual freedom as for the Western civilisation that bases its conception of freedom on its own personal morality. For the rights that are given to us exist only because the most powerful system in place has decided they should exist. If you do not accept the laws they feel they can impose upon you consequences will be pending because they believe, they truly believe, that their judgment is the highest good in human morality. And they fear, they truly fear, that giving up this control over the people renders society ineffective. They might be right. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re right.
What matters is you. And do you believe in the laws that are being upheld by your government? If you do all is good and wonderful, there is no reason for conflict if no issues between the parties exist. If you don’t you end up with a different problem. Namely…how does one uphold one’s own code of morality in the face of such strong adversity posed by a system with the power to violently lock you up in a little cell in which you may not even see the light of day?
Moral superiority does not exist because no universal law of Morality exists. What we have is a series of preferences, of judgments, and it is this that society tries to uphold on a grand scale. If your conception of Morality(preferences) differs then that is your loss. They will even go so far as to arrogantly claim that “If you don’t like it you should leave” even though they have no valid monopoly on the land you inhabit beyond their own feeling of entitlement. They are fools. You are dealing with fools. We are dealing with fools. But they are powerful fools and thus we must resort to less obvious means of making our protests heard.
First, we must understand that we’re not weak, not powerless. The “system” exists out of individuals and if we can control the individual within the system we invariably end up with power over the system. But we must also understand the nature of our opposition. Where common anarchism fails in the loathing of all authority it also fails at understanding that no moral superiority exists. And if no moral superiority exists we must simply aim to accomplish our own personal preferences. In so doing, it is by all means reasonable for empathic individuals to accept certain societal forces such as police officers and other law enforcers. So we must not make a blind and arrogant stand against all of society…far from it…we must only challenge that which inflicts upon us the burden of a less than ideal existence. Police officers in particular seem to be the objects of hatred and dislike for many people in my surroundings. Yet, these officers are the ones risking life and limb (if need be) to maintain a healthy degree of physical and emotional safety for society. So one wonders at the root of such resentment. It is not justified.
On power. Earlier, when I wrote we have to understand that we’re not powerless, I was not so much aiming at the notion of using excessive violence. Far from it…I abhor violence. We, as individuals, have the power to always do roughly three things.
To inspire.
To teach.
And to lead by example.
Through these three we can promote all the change we desire, if we have enough patience and love. Never be fooled into thinking any less of yourself.
June 1st, 2010 at 12:12 am
Hey Kai, I felt like responding to this entry, thanks for reading.
“This is as true for the Eastern countries of which the Western world condemns the lack of individual freedom as for the Western civilization that bases its conception of freedom on its own personal morality.”
The “Western” conception of freedom is largely considered universal, and although the concept of universality is indeed philosophically suspect, our freedom is codified for one thing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights and Western conceptions of freedom are by no means fool-proof. They are human inventions and apply to humans, as is in the name, and are therefore highly fallible. At the same time, they are also the best we have. They are the result of philosophical, legal, cultural and moral traditions that stretch back to ancient antiquity.
They are not whimsical and personal at the least, and we condemn nations who do not respect these laws because it leads to levels of human suffering at the hand of governments that are simply not known here.
–
“First, we must understand that we’re not weak, not powerless. The “system” exists out of individuals and if we can control the individual within the system we invariably end up with power over the system.”
Isn’t control over the individual what you’re scared of? It sounds like you want to do away with a system of control over individuals, by establishing control over the individual, thus establishing a new system of coercion. Power has to eventually be vested somewhere.
–
“Namely…how does one uphold one’s own code of morality in the face of such strong adversity posed by a system with the power to violently lock you up in a little cell in which you may not even see the light of day?”
I’m interested in what your code of morality is, which apparently engenders “strong adversity” with the law and constitutes capital offence.
–
“And if no moral superiority exists we must simply aim to accomplish our own personal preferences.”
This is evidently false. For one thing, saying that one ‘must’ follow one’s own convictions, is a morally superior claim in itself. It’s like saying relativism is absolute: that claim is inherently contradictory.
Second, if no moral superiority or method of control existed, murderers and criminals would be free to do as they pleased. How it this desirable? Humans are flawed, and giving them complete freedom to act out their flaws would more often than not be disastrous.
–
“In so doing, it is by all means reasonable for empathic individuals to accept certain societal forces such as police officers and other law enforcers.”
Here you bring the police, law enforcers and thus the law itself and the systems of control which are inherent to them, back in to the equation. Like you say yourself, you cannot do without these institutions, and you cannot do without some regulation of power and control.
–
Large bodies of peoples need to be governed, or no real state of civilization could be obtained. This was fine and well for the caveman of yesteryear, but regulatory institutions like the nation-state and national governments are simply not replaceable in this day and age when billions of humans roam the globe. Human rights and our ideas about universalistic freedom are helpful philosophical and political notions in this regard, and help steer the way our lives are governed.
We are to a large extent controlled in our lives, by governments and policies and media and hidden power structures. At the same time we should be thankful that we live in societies where democracy reigns, which means that voting people still have some input in political matters. After all, we still choose our rulers.
Cheers,
Patrick
June 1st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Patrick,
I had no idea you were still perusing this website. I’m fairly pleased by this turn of events.
“The “Western” conception of freedom is largely considered universal, and although the concept of universality is indeed philosophically suspect, our freedom is codified for one thing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights and Western conceptions of freedom are by no means fool-proof. They are human inventions and apply to humans, as is in the name, and are therefore highly fallible. At the same time, they are also the best we have. They are the result of philosophical, legal, cultural and moral traditions that stretch back to ancient antiquity.
They are not whimsical and personal at the least, and we condemn nations who do not respect these laws because it leads to levels of human suffering at the hand of governments that are simply not known here.”
The legal essence of our society may not be personal, depending on how you look at it. It’s been a long time coming and is definitely still in development. But the appreciation of our laws and our conception of right and wrong is (personal). You may see this as a complicated cake in which each layer of rules in the legal system is in fact an addition of subjectivity…of what is perceived to be the right thing. Since most people are basically in agreement of what is right and wrong this summons no true difficulty in most situations…but it might. And at these times it is senseless to claim any kind of superiority through the law, because the law and the appreciation thereof is a subjective phenomenon.
“Isn’t control over the individual what you’re scared of? It sounds like you want to do away with a system of control over individuals, by establishing control over the individual, thus establishing a new system of coercion. Power has to eventually be vested somewhere.”
I’m not directly scared of anything in this context. And I have no desire to do away with the system because the system serves most of my needs properly. I think you see the initial writing as a piece of rebellion…which it’s not. It is in fact an observation in which I tried not to leave any stone unturned. The title of the writing is ‘Power’ and as a consequence one might expect the writing to be about just that.
“I’m interested in what your code of morality is, which apparently engenders “strong adversity” with the law and constitutes capital offence.”
You read that wrong. I don’t claim that my code of morality provokes violent adversity.
“This is evidently false. For one thing, saying that one ‘must’ follow one’s own convictions, is a morally superior claim in itself. It’s like saying relativism is absolute: that claim is inherently contradictory.”
I agree, ‘must’ is a poor choice of words. Consider it a suggestion in stead. Aside from that, it’s obviously not a claim of morality.
“Second, if no moral superiority or method of control existed, murderers and criminals would be free to do as they pleased. How it this desirable? Humans are flawed, and giving them complete freedom to act out their flaws would more often than not be disastrous. ”
Yes, this is taken from an individual and, again, subjective perspective. It is undesirable for you, and me, to have murderers and other criminals run wild. But certainly not so for the murderers themselves. Do you see that you are trying to justify subjectivity with more subjectivity? The only reason you like the law, is because the law actively (although sometimes barely) defends your needs and desires. And let me be clear. You are not speaking of moral superiority…you are speaking of moral preference. Just because it’s defined through a set of human laws it’s not necessarily by any means superior. It is, in stead, a construct of human processing and can hold no justification above that processing.
“Here you bring the police, law enforcers and thus the law itself and the systems of control which are inherent to them, back in to the equation. Like you say yourself, you cannot do without these institutions, and you cannot do without some regulation of power and control.”
I cannot…or don’t want to…because it serves me best to have officials clean up what I consider to be the mess. But this does not negate my claim that it is all one big clusterfuck of preferences (in this case mine) against a series of other preferences (those of the criminals) The law serves my preferences more strongly…so I have simply lucked out with this resonance of sorts.
“We are to a large extent controlled in our lives, by governments and policies and media and hidden power structures. At the same time we should be thankful that we live in societies where democracy reigns, which means that voting people still have some input in political matters. After all, we still choose our rulers.”
I agree. But it has always been a personal interest of mine to truly understand the principles at work. And whereas most people, without much thought, accept the laws and rules in place as absolute, accept their own morality as such too, it is of interest to me to point out that this might not be so cut and dry.
The point of the writing is ultimately this:
1. Morality appears to me as a subjective notion, thus our laws that uphold them are extension of personal preferences.
2. If our preferences differ strongly from those advocated through the law (note the IF) we possess subsets of power to influence said law.
3. I suggest one does this through the last three methods mentioned. Teaching, inspiring and leading by example.