People who are offended by history will not eliminate current problems by punishing the past. If anything, that leads to creating our own morality without the moral compass that learning from the mistakes of the past provides.
Most of us remember learning about the sobering lessons of WW1 and WW2. We learned from those who documented the past transgressions of demonization, imprisonment, torture and genocide based on class. This teaches us that persecution and discrimination are travesties that must be prevented in the future. Alongside that we learned lessons about forgiveness and maturity, that humanity has a hope of healing from this great wound caused by the consequences of what happened then, that what an individual or nation did in the past does not define who they are today - that they have a choice to choose the right moral decisions and be a better person.
In modern day, content is produced for the sake of whatever might gain traction. Whatever sells. Shock content. Depravity. Sexual content. Horror. Killing. Theft. Idolatry. Covetousness. Disparagement. Lying/falsehood. Every depth of sin is produced in the name of humor or entertainment (pleasure). I am certain that our present day morality is no more blameless than the pervasiveness of blind immorality that was permitted in media and practice decades ago.
There were times in our relatively recent history where it was pervasive to practice class stereotype based persecution. Times where the loudest voices of the day were creating enemies for the public to fear based on some externally or socially identifiable difference. The easiest identifiers were hair or skin color and facial features. None of which has any reflection on a person’s character, personality, or behavior. Yet many many countries were guilty of this; even the “good guys”. This kind of ideology allowed leaders to gain power and persuasion over their people. It led to senseless capturing and horrific abuse of countless numbers of people who were innocent of nothing but association with a particular classification. All in the name of creating safety and lack of discomfort for a country’s citizens, a concept of ethnocentricity. This shallow promise of safety was pursued at the cost of its citizens itself, sacrificing themselves under the pretense that their sacrifices are for a “greater good”. Sound familiar?
In hearing about the recent public awareness of some of the early satirical content of the talented author Dr. Seuss, I have to wonder too whether some of the content that we look back on and condemn today was not produced simply for humor but to raise awareness to the issue at hand. We do this today in countless memes and other content aimed to bring light to a particular issue of the day.
If one were to produce content that shocks their reader - how many of the readers would walk away saying “this is normative behavior”? Only the ones who would have believed so anyway. We (and any morally driven person) should not be nodding our heads and calling what is bad good; we should be critically evaluating the content we see through the lens of our moral compass.
Shock content should make us uncomfortable so that we are forced to make a moral decision (either to celebrate and accept depravity, or identify it for what it is and choose to personally condemn it in our own lives). Eliminating the indicator (the symptom) may serve to bury the problem deeper. At the same time we must be cautious in creating content, as many illustrators and artists, many media influencers - in trying to make a point against some immoral behavior - have succeeded in simultaneously proliferating and allowing depraved content to enter into our minds. It is a two edged sword.
For example, pro lifers propagating images of abortion and documenting what it is and its consequences... this content shocks primarily those who are already shocked by it. For others, it is educational - to bring awareness to all sides of a very personal ethical decision. For those who strongly lean pro choice, they can easily refute it saying “its not that bad”... doctors deal with gruesome sights and ethical dilemmas all the time. Modern abortion is a clinical procedure much like removing any other offending “tissue” that causes us discomfort and is seen as a threat to our current state of comfort or health. So a doctor practicing abortion is only responding to a demand for a service - and doctors on both sides whether refusing to perform or agreeing to perform that particular procedure may both be “doing no harm” in the way they perform or refuse to perform that service.
It is an ethical decision for the patient to choose to demand that service. Pro life proponents may favor publicizing certain impacts of “killing a preborn human” while pro choice proponents may favor publicizing perceived benefits of “terminating an unwanted pregnancy.” The result of creating (sometimes disturbing) content showing all sides is that if it reaches the right audience in the right way it will prevent the ethical decision from being made blindly and in a vacuum.
Has our present day society actually become morally superior to our former selves? The pursuit of pleasures and trying to avoid even the tiniest possibility of discomfort has left us vulnerable, weak and unguarded, dependent and fearful of the very cornerstones of society that historically have made us strong. Today we have evolved into a culture where it is frowned upon if you do not celebrate alongside those who are practicing and celebrating every depraved desire their hearts can think of. I like to hope that we are improved and have learned hard lessons from history, but we cannot assume ourselves blameless. We must not assume the morality problem lies only with the past. We must be constantly mindful of our present behavior and attitudes or we will fall into a predicament as bad as or worse than our predecessors.
What will we choose to fill our minds with?
What will we turn a blind eye to?
How will we make our own ethical decisions? Will we seek to truly understand all sides and make an informed ethical choice? Will we go along with public opinion or public fears to avoid being ostracized? Will we choose to live a life thats primary goal is to be the most comfortable and avoid even the least discomfort while sacrificing our rights, our security, our ability to think critically, and our very moral compass?
No comments:
Post a Comment