Humanity Under Fire

I may be naive, but I am a believer in the general goodness of mankind. I believe that men (and women) are, in general, considerate and rational people. Sure, maybe we're all prone to do wrong, but I believe that humans are predictable when it comes to morality: we care about those we love and do the best we know how for them, and we hate anything that we perceive as a threat those we love.

Where things go wrong, though, is how we "perceive" threats and how we respond to them. It's when our desire to care for ourselves and those we love clashes with other people's perceptions of what's in their best interest that conflicts arise.

Take for example Adolf Hitler. I believe that his primary motivation was to further the standing of himself, his family and friends, his country, and his "race" in general. Basic human nature, nothing really WRONG with those wants. But what WAS wrong was how he responded to the Jews, whom he perceived as a threat/competition to his race. He shouldn't have murdered them, to put it mildly.

But can you not see his primary motivation there? He thought he was doing what was best for his nation/race. If he hadn't killed all those people he would probably be remembered in history as a great conqueror along the lines of Napoleon, a hero of the German people.

In other words, even those who commit great atrocities are motivated primarily by the same feelings that drive all of us: a desire to advance the positions of ourselves and those we care for. That's the survival of the fittest. That's natural law. That's NATURE through and through.

Take, as another example, slavery in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries. Sure, slavery is wrong, we know that now. But can we really look down on or despise those who were part of the slave trade? They were trying to live their lives to the benefit of those they cared about (mostly), earn money to feed their families, gain wealth for the benefit of themselves and those closest to them. Is that wrong? Perhaps the means with which they employed to achieve those ends were wrong, but I don't think you can say their MOTIVATIONS (to feed their family, etc.) were wrong. Think about this: what if you had the choice of engaging in slavery and feeding your family or NOT engaging in slavery and going bankrupt because you cannot compete with other farmers, thus letting your family starve? Which would you pick?

Or to involve a topic much closer to heart, the "quota" system the government uses when giving scholarships, places in university, etc. They call it a "meritocracy", but we all know that Malays with 7As are getting scholarships whereas Chinese/Indians with 10As get nothing. "UNFAIR!!!" we Chinese/Indians cry. We perceive the system as an injustice, a threat to the future well-being of ourselves and those whom we care about. It's just not RIGHT that we are forced to work three times harder just to compete with the "lazy" Malays, yes?

But look at it from a Malay point of view. Without the system as it is, urban Chinese/Indians would dominate and grab up most the scholarships/uni positions available. This says nothing about the intelligence of the Malays, merely that the urban population (and thus majority Chinese/Indian) is better educated than the rural population. A fact whether we like it or not. And thus the Malays would be confined to a substandard level of education. Without the system as it is, the Malays would lose out, and they certainly don't want that either.

So who's right? Neither, I'd say. Both parties want to further their own interests, which is completely to be expected and natural. We want the best for those we care about it, and like it or not, Chinese people are going to care more about Chinese people and Malays about Malays. It's a conflict of interest to which both sides have reasonable aims and motivations.

The same, I think, can be applied to almost all social issues. Racism, religious warring, caste systems, poverty, even global warming. Both sides have, if not morally correct, at least reasonable motivations for their actions. We humans want to further our own interest, and inevitably some of those interests are going to conflict with others. It's a rat race in which the fittest win, and those less fit get crushed beneath the throng. The only way any of those issues are going to get solved is if one side wins out, "crushing" the other.

I guess my question is whether the human instinct to further the interests of those we care about is morally justified. Is it right that we want ourselves and our families to be the richest, the best educated, the healthiest of them all? I'm sure that most of you would agree that it IS right, or at the very least that it is NOT wrong. We protect those we care for, nothing wrong with that, right? But what I do know is that causing distress on others just because I want to further my own interests IS wrong. And furthering my own interests is in some way inevitably going to cause others some measure of distress, since everyone else is trying to further their own interests too. Thus we have ourselves a moral dilemma.

I guess I just don't trust the term "survival of the fittest" anymore. Survival of the fittest implies that some people are inherently better than others, and I'm a firm believer in the equality of all human beings. I don't want to be part of the global rat race, to compete, to beat others, to dominate, if it means that others get hurt. And get hurt people do, in one way or another, inevitably. Perhaps that's why I hate competitions. I don't want to be part of it, yet I can't extricate myself from it. Because I want to live a good life too, free of troubles. I want to see my friends, family, nation, and yes, even race, prosper. And that means crushing others beneath my shoe.

My humanity is under fire.