Since it came up in our reading, I posed to my students in
the last few days the question, “is there a rule book of a program for life? Is
there a purpose to life?”
Unfortunately, none could give a satisfactory answer.
My most thoughtful student first offered the constructivist
position: the goal and the rules and the real are whatever one’s own society
has decided they are.
So, okay, is it, on this basis, legitimate to criticise Nazi
Germany—let alone go to war with them? Is it legitimate to go to war to end
slavery in a society that accepts it as proper? What about child sacrifice?
Cannibalism? Wife-beating? They can be no better or worse in principle than any
other random moral standard, right?
And when the world believed the world was flat, then it was flat.
He backed away at this, and proposed instead the existentialist position. We are free to decide for ourselves on our own particular life goals.
We had been reading MacBeth. So, did MacBeth or Lady MacBeth choose properly, in making their life goal to gain power no matter who else got harmed? Don’t they themselves soon come to regret the choice? And indeed, on this basis, o we have any right to criticize John Wayne Gacy? Execute, perhaps; but arbitrarily, in the end.
These are the official, and it seems prevalent, views on ethics and ontology in our time. They are logically and indeed morally untenable. For right and wrong, justice, and reality are actually objective and immutable qualities. You cannot will a thing into being, or into being right.
This shows why mental illness is rapidly on the rise. It explains why drug use and suicide are surging. And it explains why mass shootings and such desperate escapes as transvestitism are on the rise. It explains social breakdown generally.
The problem is quite simple, and it is drastic: to most moderns, life itself is pointless.
Some, the good among us, will sink into hopeless depression. Some will seek death, a chemical escape, or self-mutilation. Others will conclude that the only value left is self-interest, and become like MacBeth.
This is often a failure of parenting. But then, if the parent has no moral core or values, they have nothing to pass on. And our culture has suffered a collapse of values.
Going to Catholic schools growing up, the answer to the question was obvious. The purpose of life was to know and love God, and to serve him in this world and the next. There was a rule book: the Ten Commandments. One might reject it, but at least the answer was held out to you.
Public schools, of course, no longer teach any such thing. They teach constructivism, or existentialism.
There I no excuse for this; for even across all religious beliefs, the purpose of life is clear, and always has been, even to the ancient pagans. The purpose of life is—in fact, self-evidently—to seek and promote truth, justice, and beauty. This corresponds to the Catholic teaching, because that is what God is: the perfect ultimate source and essence of truth, justice, and beauty. But it is equally true ithout that insight. There is, leaving aside the Ten Commandments, necessarily, a necessary rule: the rule of universal love, expressed in all cultures as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Kant demonstrated that, apart from any specific religious belief, this was a categorical imperative: treat others as an end, never a means. Act as you would wish all others to act. Stray from these essential truths, and you are insane.
Most of us are, in the true sense, insane.
It makes me fear to even walk among other men.
No comments:
Post a Comment