Anyway, that's not really what I wanted to talk about. No, it's more I want to talk about an interesting point raised in the film.
It's said that a lion doesn't feel guilt when it kills a gazelle, and that people don't feel guilt for squashing a fly. Now I ask, why? Well I suppose the answer is pretty obvious. Humans are sentient organsims, with brains that allow emotions and feelings such as guilt. Hence when we do something, like kill an innocent person, we'd tend to feel guilty. And if we were to squash a fly, of course we wouldn't feel guilty because... Well, because why? What makes the act of murder any different if it's inter-species.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying slaughtering cows and livestock is wrong. That actually serves a purpose. We're going to eat those animals, and so we bred and raised them for that purpose. But a fly, we aren't going to eat. Technically, we're making a waste of a life. We aren't benefiting ourselves by not eating it. We just killed it because it was probably really annoying, as fly's tend to be. In that regards, does that mean a fly's life is worth less than that of human who is guilty of the same crime of being annoying?
Yes. That's exactly what it means. If everyone was to compare the "importance" of life between different animals, of course humans would come up on top, because we are human. Then things like dogs, bunnies and other cute things would probably be next on the list. Then probably livestock. Then maybe the more dangerous predators. And then the shit eating detritivores. But the thing is, who are we to judge the importance of life? If Biology has taught me anything, it's that every organism links to one another in some way, shape or form. That's why we have things like food chains and fluctuating populations.
But people don't really like to be considered "animals", do they? Personally I don't mind accepting that fact, but I'm sure there are countless amounts of people who would disagree that we can be compared to beasts. I suppose there is a partial truth to that though. We are, after all, the apex predators of the earth. No wild animal on this planet can even stand to fight against an army of armed humans. So then, as we are the apex predators, this creates the thought that we are, in many respects I suppose, more worthy of life compared to creatures such as fly's.
Okay then, so let's say we accept this notion. We as the human race are the apex predators, the greatest product of natural selection to date. As a result, our lives are more valuable then that of any other animal. But now we have to look inside our own species. Are there other humans that deserve to live more than others. And perhaps to a greater extent, is it possible to say that some people deserve to die?
There are some pretty nasty people in this world after all. Rapists, child molesters, pyromaniacs, chavs, murderers... Ah, now that's an interesting point. Society as a whole (in cultures that I'm familiar with anyway) recognize that murder is wrong, and is a crime. However the punishment for murder is normally either a life sentence in jail, or even execution. But hold on a minute. Surely if we murder this person, the executioner, the judge who deemed this person guilty and any other parties who wanted the individual dead would then also be considered murders, no? They are actively taking charge of ending someone's life. It's definitely considered pre-meditated too. In a lot of cases, I'm sure revenge is also in the mind of a victim's loved one. This in itself is technically murder, if the prosecuted is killed. However it's okay, because this person killed someone else.
So, it seems to me that everyone is born with a blank slate more or less in terms of having a "right to live". If you do something that is deemed wrong, your life value decreases. The more "bad" things you do, the more you deserve to die. Each action would have it's own weighting of how "bad" it really is of course. But so, if using this logic, does that mean that the value of life can increase too? If someone does a whole bunch of things deemed "good" by society, then surely they must deserve to live more. In essence this is the idea that our actions shape how we are perceived by others.
It seems that the order of mortal morality is that the loss of one life calls for the re-compensation of another. A death for a death. And with so many people being born all the time, we don't really need to worry about our population size as a species. But this is all just how I see the world. I'm not saying this is how things are to the letter. Just what they look like to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment