The Search for a Sustainable Value System
I think it's been about a year since I've been seriously searching for a value system that is sustainable. What I mean by sustainable, is a system designed to make the world a better place by pointing humanity in the direction of Eden (for the lack of a better visual) rather than the current direction, which appears to be to turn the entire planet into a desert (i.e., devoid of life).
I admit, that I haven't invited others on this personal quest of mine, so if someone posts a comment that has the answer, I will be quite happy... I guess that is my sideways way of inviting you to chime in.
So on to the system. I think it all started with an inspired re-writing that I did of the 10 commandments. I'm not sure how many folks attempt such a thing, but it was an interesting exercise into understanding why that little set of rules came into being. Unfortunately, for the moment, my rewrite is hidden elsewhere in cyberspace. At the time, I was so desperate to post it, I actually paid top dollar to send it from an airport Internet kiosk. Funny how things change worth in the blink of an eye. But I digress (again).
Freedom, life, happiness, compassion, truth, initiative, renew, love, fairness, equality, etc.
What is the minimum list of these items that would make up a value system, and what is their relative rank to one another. I have written and rewritten these time and time again, in various orders, with different ones being inserted or left out, including the difference between the value for oneself vs. the value for others... So, here goes again...
First of all, it is the reality of existence that every being is free. Freedom is the natural state of the world. From the chipmunk that lives under the house, to the eagle in the sky, to the grass on the shore, every living thing is free. Freedom to move anywhere one can, freedom to think any thought that appears, freedom to interact in anyway possible the other objects of the world. Even we humans are in reality, totally and 100% free.
Of course, we have this little thing called "society" or "civilization" or "laws" that defines certain possible consequences from certain actions we might take, so while we are "free", very few (if any) of us actually act on that freedom on an ongoing basis. If a person was totally alone in the wilderness, away from any other person, or any watching eyes, we might feel the lifting of those consequences, and might do anything we could imagine doing... run, sing, jump, yell, dig, curse, hit, think, sleep... if a person were totally out of contact with "civilization", one might FEEL free.
So, I submit this to you as a given, all living things are free, although humans (in particular) are restrained by their own beliefs about consequences that could or would occur.
This might beg the question, what about slaves and prisoners? Well, they are totally free to do anything that they are physically or mentally capable of doing... It just so happens that they aren't capable of doing the same sorts of things as those of us who are "free", in the common use of the term. It seems like there needs to be another word for "free" because prisoners are "free" and yet they don't have "freedom".
To avoid confusion, in my descriptions, when I say "freedom", I specifically refer to the state of a living thing being able to do anything it is capable of doing. In this sense "freedom" will not refer to the actual position that the individual might find themselves in.
Alright, so freedom is the natural state of living things. Given. Now what. Well, that brings us to life. Freedom is a state that only living things can experience. So life is essential for freedom to exist. And life is really the most highly valued thing any being can have. And living things will do anything they can to stay alive. In fact, that is the number one drive of living things; to remain alive. One might argue that their is the sacrifice of a parent for a child (or progeny), and I do not deny that drive, but I suspect that for humans at least, the drive to live trumps all other drives. Recall Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I happen to agree with Maslow that life is the most urgent need that living things have.
So we now have a rather rough look at the situation. First, all living things are totally free to do anything that they can do. Second, all living things value their own life more highly than anything else and tend to do anything they can do to stay alive. Third, living things have a hierarchy, rough though it may be, of drives and needs that living things attempt to satisfy.
Along come humans. Humanity is destroying life more effectively than any plague or asteroid or cataclysm in known history. While I do participate in this (see earlier post), my goal is the opposite. My goal is to restore and renew life to the planet and to restore natural wilderness... to move humanity in the direction of Eden. What value system should I adopt to ensure that I am on track to achieving my goal?
It all comes down to having a value system that will help me to make effective choices that always move me toward my goal. So, where to begin...
1. Compassion for Others
I think that compassion for others is probably the most important value in a value system. Compassion referring to the value of the life and freedom of others. Allowing others to live and to do whatever they wish to do. Making choices that allow others to do whatever they want. Making choices that avoid causing suffering, pain, or death.
I should rewind just a moment and define "others". While I certainly appreciate being a human being, I recognize that their are trillions of living things that share this planet with me. Clearly, as a living thing, I value my life more than any other living thing. And yet, I believe that I will be happy, and meet my needs, by valuing all living things on the planet. I can't say that I value a single cell of bacteria in the same way that I value a human being, but I do value all living things. So when I refer to "others", read that as "other living things", not simply "other sentient humans" as one might imagine.
By compassion for others, I mean that we value the lives and welfare of others so much that we would never intentionally cause others to suffer. An important question might be, is it okay to cause unwanted yet intentionally suffering (or death) to one being, in order to prevent the avoidable suffering (or death) to another? This one tends to stump me. When I was in high school, I took a college level ethics class and we were posed with scenarios where we had to answer this very question. I was, and still probably am, very utilitarian in my approach. This is indeed such a deep question that I don't have the energy or time at the moment to delve into it.
Compassion, which I could define as a generalized feeling of love, was the top value of many historical figures, but one in particular... Jesus. I pause for a moment to interject that I am not talking about Jesus in a supernatural sense, but in the sense of Jesus as a historical figure. Jesus modeled compassion and love for others. Other than the possibility that he ate other animals (fish), I suspect that Jesus did everything he could to be compassionate and to show that he loved and respected the life and freedom of all living things. He went so far as to ask that his followers did not resist evil by force; that they did not try to fight against the Romans, or to rise up and kill others to remove him from the cross. He was modeling compassion for others. And while I can't say that I believe Jesus was in any way supernatural, I do admire the model for living that he embodied.
Compassion for others is not so easy. In our daily lives, we make so many choices, from when to turn something on, to where to throw something, to what to buy, to when and where to drive, to what to say... we make choices constantly. In many cases, we can see the primary impact immediately, like when we are telling someone a story. Of course, if that person relates that story to someone else in a different way, we probably won't see the impact of that, so perhaps we can never really know the total extent of the impact of any action. In some cases, we simply don't have enough information to know what is going on when we make a decision.
When I purchase a tank of gas, for example, what is the impact? Is it compassionate to purchase a tank of gas? I will burn the entire tank of gas, releasing pollution into the environment. To get the gas, a portion of land had to be stripped of life, so a well could be drilled and a pump put in place. A pipeline had to be constructed along with an entire supply system. The raw materials for these pipes and boats probably came from mining, from stripping the land of life, and the burning of fuel to make all this happen caused even more pollution. In order to get the gas, my country waged various wars, which I funded through my tax money, to make sure that I would get the gas at an incredibly low dollar price. Of course, during the wars, many were killed, not just people, but entire forests and ecosystems. Even now, the depleted uranium shells used to attack the poor people in Iraq are causing birth defects. Even now, the unexploded bombs I paid to have dropped are maiming and killing innocent children in Afghanistan. I simply went to the station to purchase a tank of gas, but the impact of that on the world is not compassionate, and taken as a single event, buying the tank of gas is not a compassionate act, in fact, it is an act of violence against others. Using money causes and motivates violence, but again, that is another entire essay, and I digress.
Making compassionate can only be ensured when their is perfect information about the impact that choice has on the world. A question in my mind is, is it better for me to try to reach my goal by weighing various acts as either compassionate or violent, and then trying to make sure the compassion outweighs the violence? Or, should I never do anything that will result in violence? More questions, and I was trying to write about answers.
In a Sustainable Value System, Compassion for Others must be the top value, but most choices require lots of information so the person can determine if the choice is compassionate. Knowledge and logic are essential for compassion. It is not enough to be kind hearted. Perhaps that is where our society looses focus. We seem to value and elevate intention rather than impact. This causes us to forget that compassionate choices can only be make when we understand how that choice impacts the world. So while compassion for others is a top value, knowledge and logic are almost preconditions for compassion.
So my search for a sustainable value system continues. What other values need to be in a sustainable value system? What other things do people need to understand to implement a sustainable value system? How can we move from being a species of destruction to a species of creation and restoration?
I read these questions and see them as difficult, but I think they are probably the most important questions our generation should address and answer, otherwise, our children, grandchildren, and all the living things on this planet, don't have much to look forward to.
I admit, that I haven't invited others on this personal quest of mine, so if someone posts a comment that has the answer, I will be quite happy... I guess that is my sideways way of inviting you to chime in.
So on to the system. I think it all started with an inspired re-writing that I did of the 10 commandments. I'm not sure how many folks attempt such a thing, but it was an interesting exercise into understanding why that little set of rules came into being. Unfortunately, for the moment, my rewrite is hidden elsewhere in cyberspace. At the time, I was so desperate to post it, I actually paid top dollar to send it from an airport Internet kiosk. Funny how things change worth in the blink of an eye. But I digress (again).
Freedom, life, happiness, compassion, truth, initiative, renew, love, fairness, equality, etc.
What is the minimum list of these items that would make up a value system, and what is their relative rank to one another. I have written and rewritten these time and time again, in various orders, with different ones being inserted or left out, including the difference between the value for oneself vs. the value for others... So, here goes again...
First of all, it is the reality of existence that every being is free. Freedom is the natural state of the world. From the chipmunk that lives under the house, to the eagle in the sky, to the grass on the shore, every living thing is free. Freedom to move anywhere one can, freedom to think any thought that appears, freedom to interact in anyway possible the other objects of the world. Even we humans are in reality, totally and 100% free.
Of course, we have this little thing called "society" or "civilization" or "laws" that defines certain possible consequences from certain actions we might take, so while we are "free", very few (if any) of us actually act on that freedom on an ongoing basis. If a person was totally alone in the wilderness, away from any other person, or any watching eyes, we might feel the lifting of those consequences, and might do anything we could imagine doing... run, sing, jump, yell, dig, curse, hit, think, sleep... if a person were totally out of contact with "civilization", one might FEEL free.
So, I submit this to you as a given, all living things are free, although humans (in particular) are restrained by their own beliefs about consequences that could or would occur.
This might beg the question, what about slaves and prisoners? Well, they are totally free to do anything that they are physically or mentally capable of doing... It just so happens that they aren't capable of doing the same sorts of things as those of us who are "free", in the common use of the term. It seems like there needs to be another word for "free" because prisoners are "free" and yet they don't have "freedom".
To avoid confusion, in my descriptions, when I say "freedom", I specifically refer to the state of a living thing being able to do anything it is capable of doing. In this sense "freedom" will not refer to the actual position that the individual might find themselves in.
Alright, so freedom is the natural state of living things. Given. Now what. Well, that brings us to life. Freedom is a state that only living things can experience. So life is essential for freedom to exist. And life is really the most highly valued thing any being can have. And living things will do anything they can to stay alive. In fact, that is the number one drive of living things; to remain alive. One might argue that their is the sacrifice of a parent for a child (or progeny), and I do not deny that drive, but I suspect that for humans at least, the drive to live trumps all other drives. Recall Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I happen to agree with Maslow that life is the most urgent need that living things have.
So we now have a rather rough look at the situation. First, all living things are totally free to do anything that they can do. Second, all living things value their own life more highly than anything else and tend to do anything they can do to stay alive. Third, living things have a hierarchy, rough though it may be, of drives and needs that living things attempt to satisfy.
Along come humans. Humanity is destroying life more effectively than any plague or asteroid or cataclysm in known history. While I do participate in this (see earlier post), my goal is the opposite. My goal is to restore and renew life to the planet and to restore natural wilderness... to move humanity in the direction of Eden. What value system should I adopt to ensure that I am on track to achieving my goal?
It all comes down to having a value system that will help me to make effective choices that always move me toward my goal. So, where to begin...
1. Compassion for Others
I think that compassion for others is probably the most important value in a value system. Compassion referring to the value of the life and freedom of others. Allowing others to live and to do whatever they wish to do. Making choices that allow others to do whatever they want. Making choices that avoid causing suffering, pain, or death.
I should rewind just a moment and define "others". While I certainly appreciate being a human being, I recognize that their are trillions of living things that share this planet with me. Clearly, as a living thing, I value my life more than any other living thing. And yet, I believe that I will be happy, and meet my needs, by valuing all living things on the planet. I can't say that I value a single cell of bacteria in the same way that I value a human being, but I do value all living things. So when I refer to "others", read that as "other living things", not simply "other sentient humans" as one might imagine.
By compassion for others, I mean that we value the lives and welfare of others so much that we would never intentionally cause others to suffer. An important question might be, is it okay to cause unwanted yet intentionally suffering (or death) to one being, in order to prevent the avoidable suffering (or death) to another? This one tends to stump me. When I was in high school, I took a college level ethics class and we were posed with scenarios where we had to answer this very question. I was, and still probably am, very utilitarian in my approach. This is indeed such a deep question that I don't have the energy or time at the moment to delve into it.
Compassion, which I could define as a generalized feeling of love, was the top value of many historical figures, but one in particular... Jesus. I pause for a moment to interject that I am not talking about Jesus in a supernatural sense, but in the sense of Jesus as a historical figure. Jesus modeled compassion and love for others. Other than the possibility that he ate other animals (fish), I suspect that Jesus did everything he could to be compassionate and to show that he loved and respected the life and freedom of all living things. He went so far as to ask that his followers did not resist evil by force; that they did not try to fight against the Romans, or to rise up and kill others to remove him from the cross. He was modeling compassion for others. And while I can't say that I believe Jesus was in any way supernatural, I do admire the model for living that he embodied.
Compassion for others is not so easy. In our daily lives, we make so many choices, from when to turn something on, to where to throw something, to what to buy, to when and where to drive, to what to say... we make choices constantly. In many cases, we can see the primary impact immediately, like when we are telling someone a story. Of course, if that person relates that story to someone else in a different way, we probably won't see the impact of that, so perhaps we can never really know the total extent of the impact of any action. In some cases, we simply don't have enough information to know what is going on when we make a decision.
When I purchase a tank of gas, for example, what is the impact? Is it compassionate to purchase a tank of gas? I will burn the entire tank of gas, releasing pollution into the environment. To get the gas, a portion of land had to be stripped of life, so a well could be drilled and a pump put in place. A pipeline had to be constructed along with an entire supply system. The raw materials for these pipes and boats probably came from mining, from stripping the land of life, and the burning of fuel to make all this happen caused even more pollution. In order to get the gas, my country waged various wars, which I funded through my tax money, to make sure that I would get the gas at an incredibly low dollar price. Of course, during the wars, many were killed, not just people, but entire forests and ecosystems. Even now, the depleted uranium shells used to attack the poor people in Iraq are causing birth defects. Even now, the unexploded bombs I paid to have dropped are maiming and killing innocent children in Afghanistan. I simply went to the station to purchase a tank of gas, but the impact of that on the world is not compassionate, and taken as a single event, buying the tank of gas is not a compassionate act, in fact, it is an act of violence against others. Using money causes and motivates violence, but again, that is another entire essay, and I digress.
Making compassionate can only be ensured when their is perfect information about the impact that choice has on the world. A question in my mind is, is it better for me to try to reach my goal by weighing various acts as either compassionate or violent, and then trying to make sure the compassion outweighs the violence? Or, should I never do anything that will result in violence? More questions, and I was trying to write about answers.
In a Sustainable Value System, Compassion for Others must be the top value, but most choices require lots of information so the person can determine if the choice is compassionate. Knowledge and logic are essential for compassion. It is not enough to be kind hearted. Perhaps that is where our society looses focus. We seem to value and elevate intention rather than impact. This causes us to forget that compassionate choices can only be make when we understand how that choice impacts the world. So while compassion for others is a top value, knowledge and logic are almost preconditions for compassion.
So my search for a sustainable value system continues. What other values need to be in a sustainable value system? What other things do people need to understand to implement a sustainable value system? How can we move from being a species of destruction to a species of creation and restoration?
I read these questions and see them as difficult, but I think they are probably the most important questions our generation should address and answer, otherwise, our children, grandchildren, and all the living things on this planet, don't have much to look forward to.