Some time before Christmas, I was thinking about discussing the intricate web of morality that surrounds religious children/ children with religious parents through my visual practice. This encouraged a brilliant debate in a seminar which, admittedly, got slightly heated. The great thing about this debate was that it was actually that; rather than an argument. I don't think any party took anything personally or held a grudge after the debate had ended. My tutor actually took the time to ask if I (as the other half of the duo responsible for the majority of the debate) was ok. I felt like I had received a tongue-lashing of the highest order, but I really liked it. This kind of healthy debate is absolutely brilliant in my opinion and when I have engaged so much with a discussion my appetite is truly whetted for more. It was possibly this insatiability, along with my at times flippant nature that led on to the next part of this sequence of events.
I was in university and ran into a good friend who I hadn't seen in a while. We had a quick catch up and before long I was regaling her with the tale of the tongue-lashing I had received only hours earlier. After this, my friend asked me, 'So, what do you think about religion?' I responded bluntly; 'Religion is stupid.'
Now I want to clear things up here; primarily, I actually do not think that religion is stupid. I will be the first to point out that religion, over history, has been at the heart of so many acts of kindness, and is responsible for an awful lot of good throughout the world. I truly believe that I was astronomically foolish, and brash in my response to my friend's question. With said tongue-lashing still ringing in my ears, I responded in kind; taking the heated energy from that debate, and immediately applying it to the current one.
Recently I was talking to the same friend and took the opportunity to apologise for my previous comment as I felt It would be productive to admit I was wrong and apologise for my actions. My apology was greeted warmly, which I was glad of and greatly appreciated. We then started to discuss our own separate views on certain issues which eventually turned to the topic of overpopulation.
I feel very strongly about overpopulation, especially as a symptom of human-centricity. This cumulated hypothetically, discussing the ramifications of applying a law similar to Chinas 'One Child Policy' in the UK. Focussing on the human-centric side of the argument I stated;
"you can't say to people 'you're only allowed one child' because if people want more than one, they'll have more than one. Especially in western society, there would be a MASSIVE uproar about it, even though in the long run it might prove beneficial."
My friend then responded with a simple sentence that made me have a kind of mini-epiphany. She said, "It would be morally wrong yes." I felt that the use of the word moral in this sentence was absolutely paramount. I thought it over for a couple of minutes and then replied; "But that creates a sort of paradox where morality, which is supposed to protect people, could possibly end up hurting them. Don't you think?"
The discussion ended there; on a point to think about and come back to. This is me coming back to it, almost a month later. The point that I am trying to make here is that our current system of morals have been developed on an individualistic basis. Much like I feel religion needs to heed in part to science, individual morals may need to be at very least re-thought as the planet is nearing capacity. I will probably write again on this topic but I wanted to keep it short after the paradox theory so that, like the discussion it can be a point for you to mull over and take away from reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment