Absolutes

‘ANAKIN: If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.

OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.’

(George Lucas)

Regular readers may have noted how dismissive I am of the notion of absolutes (except for absolute zero, which is just cool), however, smarter people than me may have realised that I do, indeed, speak of one absolute. Indeed, the one absolute that I believe exists is one of ethical and moral implications, and that is, do no unnecessary harm. Originally, I was thinking that it would be, do no harm, but, at times, harm is necessary (broken hearts etc.) as they enable us to grow past what we are and start to become what we might be, a full realisation of self.  Indeed, one might find support for such a position from the teachings of the buddha who said that before one speaks, what one says must pass through three gateways; is what one is to say: true; necessary and kind. If the answer to any of these is no, then one should refrain from speech.

It is interesting to note that the Buddha states that what one speaks must not only be necessary but also kind. Here, one might argue, the Buddha comes into conflict with the German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who writes in Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship,

‘If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be’

This, we find, as with most things, comes down to definition. After all, as our entire lives are subjective, our thinking cannot be objective and when it comes to a vague word such as ‘necessary’ then there are many possible interpretations. To remove one from the subjectivity one must try to think of an objective ‘truth’, devoid of culture and societal norms (note: we have oft noted that society is created by sick people and therefore is sick. Case in point is that mean theory would dictate that gossip is an essential cog in the forming of a society. Yet, as we spoke of recently, gossip is mean and cruel so how can a society built upon the foundation that is, in my words, ‘mean’ and ‘cruel’, be healthy? The answer is; it cannot, however if one is to look at mean theory as a core, devoid of subjectivity then one might interpret it as meaning that communication is the key to a healthy society and a society, built on healthy foundations which do no ‘unnecessary harm’, would be very healthy, for example, instead of gossiping about other people which creates an atmosphere of mistrust, fear, anxiety etc. if one discourses on nature or shopping or TV etc. then the society will be healthier.). Once we have denoted a higher ‘truth’ then one can start to consider the notion of ‘necessary’.

Let’s take a silly example which has just, like so many moths, flittered into my head. A person breaks their arm. The arm is healed but is set wrong and cannot be used properly. A surgeon then has a choice- rebrake the arm to set it correctly or leave it as it is. To rebreak the arm would cause pain and suffering but will, in the long run, yield better fruits. To leave it as it is would cause no short term pain but would hinder the person, yielding a less bountiful crop. From this we can see, objectively, that to cause the harm is the best thing to do in the long run as short-term pain yields greater long-term gains. Yet few things are as clear cut as thins, especially when dealing with complex individuals, however, some things can be objective once we analyse our own perspectives on them. People I have encountered previously have acted in a contradictory manner. For example, a person may tell another that ‘no one likes them’, but, in the same breath, complain that the same was once said to them. Others would disclose confidential information under then assumption that it is ‘necessary’ but when the same happens to them, would see it as a violation of their being and their rights. Looking at these two examples we can see that neither of the two behaviours listed fall under the notion of ‘necessary’ in relation to a higher good, an absolute moral and ethic. Rather they should be seen for what they are, cruel and stemming from the weakness and insecurity of those participating in such acts. The argument would come to emotions for one might see carrying out an act one way but the emotional response of it happening to them would be the opposite and thusly, surely, we can deduce that this truth of necessity in these examples is a lie, a lie that the one carrying out the act would acknowledge if one was to ‘think’ and ‘feel’ for a moment (sympathy not empathy).

Although we can get bogged down in definitions and subjectivity, I think we can state that the one absolute is that one should not do unnecessary harm. Yet, this one absolute is indeed two absolutes for if one was to say that, necessary harm is objectively good, then the anthesis of this must also be true, namely, if necessary harm is objectively good then unnecessary harm is objectively bad.

I still think absolute zero is cooler.

‘till next time