Topic Seven is an interesting challenge on apathy. Absolute neutrality seems like the best of both worlds most people would probably think. I can present myself as a friendly face to both sides. Why they fight I have no idea but I probably don’t care. The only problem is that in this world, you most likely live on territory that is owned. Your feet, (if off the ground who made the plane or mined the metals for that plane?) is on tribal territory, gang territory, or government land permanently. They demand taxes or a toll. If you work and you use the land for your self-interest, someone will eventually come along and demand a share because you have just grown your food or slept on land that the owner’s constituents have most likely fought and died for. When you pay your fair share or get arrested and work for them, you have taken their side whether you like it or not. This hypothesis reasons that right now on Earth that you cannot maintain complete neutrality at all. This is an extreme reasoning, embraced by some and this is why civilians are not safe in any conflict. Such is the reasoning of some terrorists, who feel that civilians are fair game due to the fact that they are the ones that pay taxes to their enemies.
There are no actual consequences of true apathy, which would be internalized and more focus, while on the surface the individual looks like a functioning member of society. The consequences are the result of behavioral apathy, or acting out on it. People who claim they are completely neutral might be mistaken, possibly unwittingly having already chosen a side as explained previously. Within the protective community it is social suicide to declare oneself a true neutral individual, apathetic to all other beings. This is a misquotation from Dante but the true reasoning is very long, mostly about the angels who neither supported nor rebelled against God and thrown into hell anyway. “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality,” is the popular saying attributed to Dante. By withdrawing from both sides of an argument, or committing something as heinous as double-dealing, both sides of an opposition are usually quick to eliminate the third party. Often times one would be considered to be experiencing anti-social behavior. One would then be considered pariah and while not removed from society, they would instead be made an example of what is harmful to society. That is why the remedy for anti-social behavior usually is imprisonment over rehabilitation.
Is true neutrality attainable? For the individual it does not seem possible. A group with enough focus on its own self interest and beliefs has been demonstrated with is as we all know, Switzerland. Geographical qualities and the unpopular Helvetic Republic being ousted (and their overrated font) has made what Switzerland is today. It’s one of the few examples I can summon up and I doubt another similar country can be summoned up in one individual.
Given the conditions above, it would then be clear that living in apathy to others is just not practical in the least sense. Humans are social animals and they should live as such. Society at times seems like a faceless machine that we’re all plugged into but it does reciprocate. Otherwise how to we get our food, and shelter usually? Someone else has already grown the food and built the houses for us and we have to work to get the things we want. Most people can’t live in the wilderness themselves. Sure, I’m stating what consumerism is but apparently with our spending habits and how we voted; it’s what got us into the system today. We do have a choice on whether or not we want to be involved with our communities. To be labeled pariah one would have to make the foolish choice of fighting society but most people whether they think they are involved or not, are helping society in some way. Society has made safeguards so we are all potentially productive, rather than destructive.
No comments:
Post a Comment