Less Fat, More Filling
I haven't read Steven Pinker's new book, but I suspect it sucks. First of all, his website defending the book begins by answering the question "How do you define violence?" Pinker responds: "I don't.". . . . and then proceeds to provide his definition.
An inauspicious start.
Second, he apparently calls a period in which his country of residence alone was continuously killing people around the globe "the long peace." And this man studied liguistics. Finally, in all the absurd coverage the book has received, he never once discusses situational dynamics.
For example. Lets say you have a would-be warlord who meets resistance in imposing his rule upon the native farmers. After an altercation, he kills one of them. Yet he finds the remainder still restless. In fact, not until his misfit army has killed 10 of them do they obey his decrees. In neighboring Stanstan, by contrast, the resident warlord has constructed a fence around the population and developed weaponry that is vastly more efficient. This warlord finds that need only kill one native farmer before the rest "align with his policies." In yet a third land, lets call it Can-ada, the warlord doesn't have to kill anyone. He just rounds up 20 people and forces them into boxes for large chunks of their lives. Maybe he even comes up with a plausible rationale for doing so.
Are either of the latter two societies less violent? I say not. The numbers may drop as efficiency in the means increases; violence may become more controlled, deliberate and less likely to impact you - whitey - but this hardly encompasses what concerns people like me about the use of "violence."
1 comments:
I harbor under no delusions of self-perceived moral superiority. I observe, absorb, analyze, synthesize and evaluate. My conclusions are based upon an understanding of what I perceive as wrongdoing (I may be wrong, but I don't think so.) However, this perception is limited, in this analysis, by what I consider to be violence. Violence is a willful harmful action inflicted upon others. The reasons for the actions are moot. There is no moral balance sheet that can redeem a "bad" action by a consequent "good" action. However, contrition may rectify or recompense the person(s) effected by the malevolence if a return to the conditions that preceded the violence can be obtained. This would not mitigate the original deed itself, but could be construed as a "good" action.
Moral hair-splitting is reserved for non-violent acts. If but a single life is lost or livelihood destroyed then the deed can never be allayed. This is not rocket science. Neither is it law. This is about conscience and morality. When, and if, we can rise above our "random acts of violence" mindset and petty selfishness we may achieve a moral backbone that praises good over a malignant hatred of ourselves.
Post a Comment