Duty

There are few things that get up my nose more than injustice and cruelty. These two words (and the activities they refer to) will overlap to a greater or lesser degree and in some instances they may equate to the same thing. A cruel act will almost certainly be unjust and in many instances an injustice may be cruel. And then there are the overriding aspects of morality and ethics. Of a certainty, whatever activity or behaviour is unjust or cruel cannot be either moral or ethical.

The other day Archie asked for my comments on activities which are often disguised as, or confounded with, “Duty”, but are really cruel and/or unjust.

Now ‘duty’ is an old word, certainly going back to Anglo-Norman times. But it is unfortunately, often misunderstood. I know “duty” gets mixed up with obeying orders (in the military or paramilitary forces and in judicial or extra-judicial matters). It also gets a bad rap from the appalling revelations about the actions of totalitarian or quasi-totalitarian governments, and unfortunately some “democratic” governments such as  “renditions” when Americans sent (send?) suspected terrorists to countries that are prepared to sanction torture to extract information – “I was just obeying orders”. In my lexicon, however, “duty” has an ethical basis. It has a basis in an action for the benefit of others; a duty of care – almost an obligation. My old stand-by the Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as, “That which is owed; a debt of money, goods or service; the action or behaviour due by moral or legal obligation; action required by one’s business, occupation or function.”

But and it is a big but, as has been said before by others, “duty is not only about doing things right, it is about doing the right thing.” Typically, the demands of justice, honour, and reputation are “imbedded” with duty.

Of course, historically, as mentioned above, totalitarian regimes – and it is a depressingly long list, all, under the guise of “keeping public order” and therefore their “duty”, maintain(ed) an appalling level of control and vicious retaliation against any dissent. Religious persecution also has a large part to play in this – excommunications; witch hunts; death by stoning for blasphemy and such other extremes.   

It is a proven fact that when the conditions are appropriate (if that is the correct word) we are all capable of involvement in such extreme activities - all of us – individuals, governments, corporations and businesses included. We all need “over sight” to ensure that we do not lose our sense of proportion; do not lose our humanity. Without a “duty of care” civilisation would not be what it is. Not everyone agrees, which is why we have laws, rules and regulations.

Free speech is the basic tenet of democracy – all other “rights” stand or fall on this one fundamental, (the freedom to worship and freedom to meet and congregate with whomsoever). The exceptions (there are always exceptions) are that child pornography, engaging in or depicting sexual violence, inciting criminal activity, defamation or slander or engaging in the persecution of any ethnic group are generally strictly forbidden and legislated against. Similarly activities that engage in or encourage corruption, malpractice or fraudulent behaviour are legislated as crimes.

Obeying orders and doing one’s Duty is no excuse for harming another person.

Mental health issues - again!

What is it with this (mental “health”) subject, this “condition” that so confuses people? First off, let’s be clear on this, it is NOT an illness, as in measles, or diabetes which have well defined pathological markers and have well documented developmental stages and certain, scientifically proven medical cures or control measures. Mental health, on the other hand, has been closely examined for over 100 years and yet the questions relating to the various “conditions” described in the psychological and psychiatric “Bible” – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM IV) produced by the American Psychological Association (APA) are no nearer being answered. Why or how some people suffer from “mental health problems” is unknown.

To me an illness is something defined, medically, by the affect it has on the human body – high temperature, skin eruptions and possible damage to organs leading to their possible failure and such like. This scientific knowledge allows physicians to specifically treat the condition presented and to either prevent it occurring in the first place (preventative medicine) or to either cure it (measles) or control it (diabetes). Thus an illness is something people HAVE – a medical, pathological condition. There is no known pathological test for mental health that will determine whether a person is depressed, schizophrenic or bi-polar (some mental health issues may be the result of the after affects of excessive drug or alcohol intake). There is no proven genetic component. Furthermore no one knows exactly how or why certain pharmaceutical drugs seem to have a beneficial effect.

Anything affecting a person’s mind, on the other hand, may result in behaviour not generally considered as normal. Again, referring to the DSM IV this altered behaviour, observed by others, checked against certain criteria listed in the DSM IV determines if a person is “diagnosed” as depressed, schizophrenic, bi-polar or whatever. Thus there is nothing objectively “scientific” about any “diagnosis”. Any “diagnosis” is subjective and based on the opinion of the observer (however well trained they may be). Then there is the claim that some “mental illnesses” may be genetic in origin (ie schizophrenia) but this is a long way from being proven. Anyway even if genes are involved genes are not “self emergent” – they are “switches” that need to be turned “on” or “off”. In other words they do not operate on their own accord. They need a “trigger” to operate – always something in the environment.

If the environment is the culprit this would mean that something witnessed or experienced by the sufferer has affected them to such an extent that they now view the world from a different perspective. Does this make them “sick”? It has been admirably stated by others that, “If you talk to God you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.” A “mental illness” may affect a person’s behaviour - something that they DO. How can anyone, except the person concerned, determine if such behaviour is “wrong” or “abnormal”? Anyway there is no known, universally accepted, definition of “normal” – what is “normal” for me may not necessarily be “normal for you. Is it not conceivable that certain behaviour be just considered as eccentric?

Consider Moses (Exodus 3.2) - he heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush but no one thinks that is odd. Now if I presented myself to a hospital and said that I heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush I know that I would be considered mentally ill and most probably medicated to calm me down!! Surely there are enough “odd-ball” and eccentric people in the broader community to allow for the odd extremes without hospitalising and forcing pharmaceutical drugs on them against their will?

Why must we (and I include myself in this “we’ as I am part of the Australian society) force our views on what “we” consider to be right or wrong on to others who may hold quite valid but different views?

If (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) one in four people in Australia either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer from a mental “illness” (as defined by DSM IV) then surely there is something dramatically wrong with the way we currently live our lives? Just read any daily news paper, or tune in to any radio or TV news programme and all you read or hear about is Man’s inhumanity to Man – the cruelty, the injustice, the manifest unkindness, general lack of consideration and want of compassion is quite extraordinary. All this is bound to affect people in one way or another. Is it not possible that people who are diagnosed as “mentally ill” are just trying to adjust to a way of life that appals them, that may be too much for them to accept and they are just trying to escape to a “safe” place? Medicating such people to the point of stupefaction is no answer and certainly not the correct solution. Nor is incarcerating them in mental institutions.

To conclude maybe I should, once again, repeat the words of the Indian sage Krishnamurti who once said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

Dog Hanging

The other day I came across a bizarre news item. Some woman, in America, had apparently become so upset that a dog had chewed her Bible that she hanged the dog and then burned it! She apparently said that God had told her to!

Now I know that God can and does do many wonderful things but I cannot believe that He instructed this woman to torture and kill one of His creatures because it chewed a book! - even a sacred book, such as a Bible.

A fine Christian attitude this woman has! In her heart there does not seem to be much compassion or the ‘milk of human kindness’ does there? If found guilty of animal cruelty she faces about four years in prison. What she needs is treatment and also, even if she has never read it, she needs to understand the sentiment expressed in the lines from the  poem, “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge -

“He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.”

My freedom stops where yours begins

I wonder if you have ever thought about the true importance of the rather glib saying, “Your freedom stops where mine begins?” It is so simple yet it is actually quite profound and has equally profound implications.

It is at the same time rather vague and yet very definite. To me, this statement has relationships at the core of its meaning. By relationships I am never just referring to intimate relationships but to the broader meaning – our relationship with the world around us; how we deal with our fellow beings.

We all understand this statement and its implications and in our own way we follow it. While I am no lawyer, it seems that this statement is the basis of all laws; it is at the core of our understanding of ‘justice’ – what applies to me must of necessity also apply to you. It is at the core of our understanding of the term ‘criminal’ – someone who by their actions has, by deception or other means, wrongfully deprived me of something which belonged to me, which is rightfully mine or for which I had had a duty of care to protect (this, of course also includes the ‘worst’ crime of all, murder - depriving another of their life). It is at the core of the word ‘cruelty’ – wilfully causing pain and suffering to another being.

I cannot think of anything else because ‘justice’, ‘criminal’ and ‘cruelty’ covers just about everything. The Laws we enact are supposed to help the practitioners of the Law to draw the line at the point where my ‘freedom’ (to do what I like) stops and your ‘freedom’ (to do what you like) begins. This is not always an easy task, hence the plethora of laws, rules regulations and other constraints placed on our ‘freedom’ to live our lives as we see fit.

To understand the statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-seven centuries ago:

“If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

So should this standard of ‘moral excellence’ come from the top down – from those who govern us, or from the bottom up – we tell those who govern us what to do? Or should we all do the ‘right’ thing?

Interesting.