Then what is a society? What, or how much, does it contain? A society could be only the interaction between students in a school, or ants in an anthill. The key word is interaction. In earlier years, people didn’t travel much. What was important was to take care of the harvest and make sure you had enough food for the winter. In 1964, Neil Armstrong was the first human being to set his foot on the surface of the moon. We travel more nowadays, and you cannot say that your actions won’t affect other people on the globe. Businesses set up their firms in Jersey because of low taxes. The Chernobyl accident affected many people – in simpler words, we have reached a point where the whole globe has become one society, an age of globalization. To me, a society is a group of people who interact with each other in some way or another. Therefore, the Earth is a society itself.
Ethics is known as the moral philosophy and involves the systemization, the defending, and the recommendation of concepts of right and wrong behaviour. If we were to make an ethical decision, this would then be a decision of right behaviour – a decision that is for the best for mankind, the environment, and so on.
It now sounds easy to decide ethically which knowledge should or should not be pursued – but it isn’t! As the earth itself is the society, there are lots of problems – culture, traditions, religion, faith, beliefs, economic systems, and so on. All people are different, and we share different values and opinions. ‘Clonaid’, for example, keeps a sub-heading on their Internet page saying, “Yes to human cloning”. They claim they are descendants of aliens – this is their faith. Islam practises many traditions, in fact, keeping up with the traditions is one of the most important things in the Muslim religion. They don’t eat pork meat, Hindus don’t eat cow meat. Many Africans are for circumcision, while Western countries are against. Then, if we in the ‘Earth-society’ share so many different opinions, how can we make an ethical decision together without agreeing on what is right and wrong behaviour?
“When it comes to practicing good ethics, saying no to a vice is not good enough. A quality life is never achieved by focusing on the elimination of what is wrong. True success requires you to focus your mental, emotional, and spiritual energies on pursuing that which is right and good. Trying to become virtuous merely by excluding vice is as unrealistic as trying to cultivate roses simply by eliminating weeds.” Culture and religion are so important to human beings – we are willing to die for them! Then how do we agree ethically, if our faith or religion oppose? We would simply all kill ourselves!
The search for knowledge could walk its own path. If there were such a thing as a free economic system, (where supply and demand for goods and services are controlled by market forces – no government!) research would be based simply upon what people want, where demand boosts, because the firms’ main objective is to make as much profit as possible. It’s because of this, that all countries have some kind of government – to make sure that there is a line, on which you do not step, where research stops – to make sure all people are in good hands, and to control the distribution of wealth. Wouldn’t it be great if the market consisted of all that we want? I mean not, just think of where it would end? We would have been past the ‘Age of Frankenstein’ for a long time already. What if we had a planned economic system, (the economy is controlled by a government) what would then be the case? The government would make all the decisions, and the people would elect the government. That would be great too, because the people would elect governors with the same wants as themselves, meaning we get what we want! No, because politicians tend to act differently from what they promise. Then how?
It’s easy for yourself to decide ethically which knowledge should or should not be pursued, because you have developed your own ethics. You know what is right and wrong to you, and as a normal human being, you think of your own survival and what is best for you. But as a society, there are too many barriers to an ethical agreement. I think we need someone to be in charge. I’m not saying “Welcome, dictatorship!” I’m saying that, as we all are different and share different values, opinions, beliefs and cultures, we won’t ever manage to make an ethical decision together. We won’t ever agree, and actually, this is part of the reasons for why people go to war – they disagree.
Based on Franz Kafka’s “Die Verwandlung”, the French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari introduced a theory, that humans want their own suppression – we want someone to be in charge of us, and make the decisions for us. “How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?” Examples of this are the Nazis, and the movie called “The Wave”, which both shows how mankind easily bends and accepts that there is someone in charge of them. They act as soldiers. I do not know whether I agree on this theory or not, but what I do know, is that we cannot satisfy all people, a decision won’t please us all, as the ‘Earth-society’ is so big. Even in the society of Norway, this would be a problem, as about 27% of all children in Oslo are foreigners with different origins and ethics. Someone has to be in charge and make sure everything is going all right, which by the definition is a government. I think it is impossible ever for a society to make an ethical decision together. Even inside the body, some cells want sugar and harmful substances, while other cells say “No!”, it’s too harmful. As I’ve mentioned, “You are born with intelligence, but not with ethics”. We evolve our own ethics, and in my opinion, we should vote democratically on which knowledge should or should not be pursued. As knowledge is experience, we would only have to sit back, experience, and vote for further ethical decisions. I agree with The Beatles, who sing “There will be an answer – let it be!”
Bibliography
- “Frankenstein – The Modern Prometheus” by Mary Shelley (1818)
-
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
- International Baccalaureate Economics HL coursework on supply, demand, market forces and economic systems.
- “Kafka – for en mindre litteratur”, written by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Pax Forlag A/S, Oslo 1994. Translated into Norwegian by Knut Stene-Johansen. (Title of book in English, own translation, “Kafka, for a smaller literature”)’
- “Anti-oedipus – Capitalism and Schizophrenia”, by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Translated by Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, Helen R. Lane. Preface by Michel Foucault. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2000.
Word count:
-
Text only: 1451
-
Including title, footnotes and bibliography: 1719
-
All text: 1748
Quotation by Massad Ayoob () For information on Massad Ayoob, please see:
From the introduction to Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ (1818) ()
Quotation by Benedetto Croce, () For information on Benedetto Croce, please see:
Quotation by Gary Ryan Blair ()
“Anti-oedipus – Capitalism and Schizophrenia”, by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Translated by Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, Helen R. Lane. Preface by Michel Foucault. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2000.
Quotation taken from the preface page xvi, by Reich.
Quotation by Massad Ayoob () For information on Massad Ayoob, please see:
