A much revered fellow blogger/close friend left a response to an earlier post to which I feel the need to counter. So, without further ado...
You argue that we desrerve to suffer and feel joy because we wake up every morning and do what needs to be done rather than simply kill ourselves. My counter argument: That suffering and feeling joy is the natural consequence of daily living does not mean that we therefore "deserve" to suffer or feel joy. If a rock is dropped into a pond, cuasing a wave which tosses a small piece of debris out of the pond and onto the shore--did that piece of debris therefore deserve to be thrown onto the shore? Does such a word as "deserve" even make sense given the context? You are sure to answer that the debris did not make a choice and therefore is incapable of "deserving." And what makes you think that people really make any choices? As often as man acts against his own best interests despite knowing what his best interests are it seems difficult for me to accept as given that man actually chooses his actions. Or take for example the act of fidgetting. Often the person biting his nails or ripping apart his cigarette butt is completely unaware that he is doing so until he looks down and notices the action already done. Or take for another example what people are willing to do for sex. The extent to which some individuals are willing to degrade themselves in order to assure a momentary gratification seems absolutely absurd so long as we believe they have a choice in the matter and are not simply being driven by instinct. (Please do not be mistaken, I do not think sex is bad, it's just that people are willing to go to absurd lengths for it.) My point here is that what we call choice very often amounts to nothing more than habit and instinct.
Taking the argument of choice in a different direction, you state that the child does "deserve" cancer because the child (or adult, it doesn't really matter) chooses to stay alive rather than simply die. This argument may carry some weight as far as the child "deserving" to sustain the cancer once he has it, but says nothing of the child "deserving" to get cancer. No choice made by the child led up to him getting cancer, that is something that is simply thrust upon him by outside sources.
One final point, and I believe it is here that we disagree (as it often happens that we disagree on the semantics more than anything else), the word "deserve" carries with it certain moral intonations--inherent in it is the concept of justice. To seperate justice from "deserving"--to minimalize it to a mere cause and effect--is to take all substance away from the word, leaving us with only an empty shell that use to house some meaning (however wrong headed that meaning may have been). To say that a man deserved to stub his toe because the movement of his foot, in conjunction with his proximity to the wall, caused him to do so is to say absolutely nothing at all. Without an inherent reference to the idea of justice the word "deserve" has no meaning at all.
Thank you for the comment, and feel free to leave as many as you like, as this actually gives me something to rant about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As I believe you are correct on our arguing more semantics, as well as a deeply rooted refusal to agree with each other in general, let me start by giving a definition of "deserve" that we can hopefully agree on. Though it does not include justice, I do not think it is not an "empty shell to house...a wrong headed meaning" either.
Deserve
verb
to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.
My point was that under this definition that the situation of being human causes us to deserve the consequences of that, by being capable of action, with or without choice; throw it out the window if you like it makes no difference, we deserve consequences. Does the debris deserve to be displaced by a rock thrown into the pond? Yes, because in this context it falls under the definition of situation. It is in the pond in which the rock is thrown (does the rock deserve to be thrown? Again yes, because it is thrown and is a rock.) If you do away with people deserving things because of or despite their intention, then the idea of justice follows. What I meant by choice was the capability of doing something different. I do not think there is much in life where we have "pure choice" but I think everything in life has consequence. Being aware of this or not does not take away the idea of deserving. The child with cancer? Deserving to get it is not a matter of action, but a matter of biological situation, that does not mean that the idea of deserving is done away with. I hope the definition clarifies my argument, and allow me to add to it. Sometimes we deserve things based on action, sometimes on situation, and sometimes on our qualities (this last could be a fun discusion). There are many factors in life, but justice and intention are not among them inherently, we create that, and deserve what we get for it... Sometime we will have to clear up the semantics of choice. As to the bit about mans interest, fidgeting and sex; those are more to do with ego than choice in my opinion, I agree with the instinct part, but again refer to situation and/or qualities. I have been thinking of justice a bit lately and will likely do a post on it soon. Please, feel free to argue. : )
Post a Comment