What Does It Take For Everyone To Be Just?

I just saw a young man speeding off in his car and a young woman, futilely chasing after it, screaming, "It's all I have.  I've got nothing!"  Why are human beings so cruel to each other?  Why do we think we have the right to ignore the clear pain of another person?

Of course, the young man felt like it was his right to leave with everything the homeless woman had.  Perhaps she had done something to him.  Whatever it was, is the theft of her bedding and belongings on this cold fall day worth the "crime" she had committed?  Of course, the local police find it easy to tear up the homeless folks' bedding and tents, leaving them with nothing to sleep with.  The local gangs attack other gangs because of an insult enacted a year ago.  A nation kills innocent civilians because of the supposed crime of their leaders.

This is all based in the human brain.  We all have mirror neurons, which cause us to identify with other people.  But we also have a way to block mirror neurons, to make some kinds of people those we refuse identity with, so we can actually treat them as less than human.  But if we refuse to identify with those of the opposite sex, those we consider "criminals", another group, another nation, then we can easily justify inhuman actions against them.

How, then, can we stop this?  If this is a natural process, what must be done to see others, ALL others as human beings?  How can it actually be morally possible to treat our neighbor as ourselves?  Are we simply not built for it, even as we all recognize how necessary it is?

Is there a social response that would help us all treat each other fairly?  Jails and prisons clearly don't work-- in fact, in some ways, they only increase the separation between humans allowing us such dehumanizing terms as "inmate" or "felon".  Can we put social pressure on each other to be fair to all people?  Can we train all children in school how to resolve conflict in peaceful ways that is fair to all sides?  If so, would it do any good, considering that our human makeup demands unfairness at times?

Is there a medical solution? What about hormone therapy?  Those with high testosterone rates often demand more respect and react more harshly than those who do not have such high rates.  But is demanding such a procedure acting in fairness to their "normal" state?  Can we demand unfairness to some for a more fair society? And, of course, unfairness is not simply a medical condition.  We are all unfair at times, especially when excessively stressed.  We are occasionally unfair to our children, to our employees, to our students; and conversely, we are occasionally unfair to our parents, employers and teachers, by applying to them unjust motives that may or may not be true.

Is the best we can do to make an ideal of fairness, of equality?  To apply objectivity and lack of judgment as a universal standard, not just a standard of courts and journalism.  And then, perhaps we can train and model the art of apologizing when we are wrong, because we all make mistakes.  If we admit our unfairnesses, and do what we can to not repeat the wrongs, can we get closer to a society that sees fairness as a true, practical standard?

Time Keeps On Slipping, Slipping, Slipping...

Einstein shows us that time is a dimension.  This means that it is a length that one measures, like depth or height.  And time becomes more important for our lives when we measure it more precisely.  In the ancient world, the day was divided into eight hours, or watches, but now we can have a meeting at 7:45 or determine the fastest runner in the world in the hundredths of a second.

But time is not always so precise.  It has been measured that time moves slightly slower on an airplane than on the earth.  Of course, this has been explained by Einstein's theory of relativity.  But what isn't explained is how time is so different in our minds.

Is time really slower when we are in a desperate emergency?  Certainly, we experience a lot more in a shorter period of time.   Why do some events take so long and other events so quick, but the same period of time is measured?  How is it that as we grow older, time goes quicker, so the years pile up?

How does our mind play with time?  Now that we can measure time we can determine it by the ticks of a clock, but why does it vary so much in our mind?  Which is more important, the time in our minds or the time of a clock?  Is personal time less significant than objective time?  Can we communicate something about ourselves by how our mind measures time?

And do different experiences of time change how we relate to others?  Oliver Sacks observed people who's personal time frame is so slow that they can no longer meaningfully participate in society.  Do we all experience such time differences?  Do "A" type personalities experience time at a different rate than "B" types?  And what about the significance of objective time?  Should we consider people "rude" because they do not have as much of a grasp of objective time and so always run late?  And what about different cultures that treat time differently?  Is our relation to time primarily a cultural, societal experience?

Relationships: Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em

Most of us have had the thought of living on a desert island from time to time.  People just a mess and they make things so complicated.  So full of need, so demanding, so judgmental, so... different than ourselves.  And there are so many of them!  And yet we remain with people.  Most of us live in cities where thousands-- millions!-- of people are crawling over each other like ants, involved in customer relations, traffic, apartment buildings and the internet.

Why are we so involved with other people when it is so hard?  What kind of drive do we have that constantly draws us to more and different kinds of people?  Why are we attracted to the opposite sex when we know that they will act in an insane manner?  

How close do we need to get to other people?  Is intimacy significant, or can we live well with a number of casual relationships?  If we do not have intimacy can we be emotionally and socially mature? 

Do our relationships not only determine our activity, but our very identity?  If we were without any relationships would we be different?  What kind of personality would we have if we didn't have relationships? 

Why does it hurt so much to separate from another person with whom we have been deeply involved, whether it be a broken marriage or an estranged relationship with a sibling?  Why is grieving at the loss of a loved one so painful?  What is it that we are missing when we grieve?  

The Future of Philosophy: The Internet

Both philosophy and theology are dogs on a walk.  It looks like they are in the lead, but any major direction changes are directed by culture.  When we have new ideas, new experiences, major events, that changes the direction of thought in general and philosophy and theology are directed by these cultural markers.

So what questions might philosophy deal with in the next 50 years, given the state of things now.  I suggest that philosophy will be answering these sets of questions because of the direction society is heading in.

One of the areas that is changing everything is the internet.  It isn't just computers, rather the internet is changing how we relate to each other and how we understand relationships.

What is relationship?  Does relationship demand physical interaction? What is community?  Can community be something different than being in physical proximity?

 Is the lack of physical really spiritual?  Is, then, the internet spiritual connection? What is missing in relationship that does not have a physical connection?  Can a relationship be complete if you can see and hear and understand the person without ever touching them?  Do we obtain information about others outside of sight and hearing?  Is that information important?

What is "friendship"? What different levels of friendship is there? Can we be socially and mentally healthy when we have deeper connections with people whom we've never seen than those around us?

If "property" has no physical existence besides a pattern of electrons, can it truly be sold?  If intellectual property is spread throughout the internet, can it be owned?  What kind of ethical regulations determine property that cannot be held or kept under lock and key?

How does ethics change in an internet environment? Besides property, how does one care for another on the internet?  What is the responsibility of one when an idea on the internet turns into a crime in the "real" world?

How Do We Create Peace?

Peace isn't controversial.  Almost everyone wants peace.  We want to be without conflict, or major conflict anyway.  We want to be a peace with everyone.

But what is the context of peace?  How can peace be achieved?  That is the real conflict. Should we bring peace by having a standard culture which everyone adheres to? But those who cannot fit in will not feel peace, will they? Is it possible to have peace by allowing everyone to do whatever they want?  But what happens if someone wants to use their freedom to harm or even kill others?  That doesn't create peace at all. 

Can we create peace by making peace a prerequisite for one's own self interest?  For example, to grant everyone economic well being if they promote peace?  But we will always have idealists who will fight and kill for what they believe in. How can we encourage them to act for peace?

And what about people who are poor? If people do not have their basic needs met, will they ever accept peace before they have their needs met?  Wouldn't they more likely fight in desperation until their needs are met? Is a prerequisite to peace creating people's well-being first?  But how do we do that?

And what about the paranoid or the severely mentally ill who look to violence because they see reality differently than the rest of us?  Can they ever participate in a society of peace?  Can we have a society of peace that includes everyone without exception?  If not, who would be excluded?  And what would we do with those excluded?

Religious Tolerance

Most people think that religious tolerance is a good thing.  We should live and let live and if a group wants to believe in something, even if it is weird, they should be allowed to do so.

But what if one's belief is that all other beliefs are wrong and that they would be severely judged if they continued to believe in the wrong thing?  Some might go to extreme measures (and many have) to convince others that they need to believe the same as oneself.  Does "live and let live" extend to beliefs that cannot accept a "live and let live" standard?  Frankly, any religion that holds itself exclusively (such as most monotheistic religionists) cannot accept tolerance as an overall standard, because their beliefs are too serious, too much a matter of life and death for it to be taken lightly enough to easily tolerate other beliefs.  Can all religions really be tolerant without compromising their faith?

And should all religions be tolerated?  Some worshipers of Kali acted on the belief that anyone not worshiping Kali should be killed.  How different is that from the 30 Years' War in Europe, when hundreds of thousands of people killed each other over which version of Christianity they accepted?  Or the Crusades, who killed people in the name of a belief?  Should such religion be tolerated?  

What about doing something less than direct killing? What if a religious practice (or a belief in general) doesn't trust modern medicine based on a scientific model?  What if they believe in an alternative model of medicine?  What if they insist upon faith healing and prayer without medicine?  Is our medicine so foolproof that we must demand that they take it?  Must we demand that they give it to their children, even against their beliefs?  Can we legislate lack of trust?  Can we afford not to?

And what about cultural tolerance?  Many religionists want to teach their children instead of sending them to public school, so they can promote their world view without outside influence.  Doesn't that warp the children for their whole lives?  Isn't that a form of enforced belief, even cult behavior?  Or are they right that legistlating public education is also a form of enforced acculturation, enforced belief?  If we don't know who is right and who is wrong, does anyone have the right to believe as we believe?

Does one cultural group have the right, ever, to enforce their beliefs on others?

What Does Justice Look Like?

Justice has not as much to do with individuals as a society.  It is certainly possible that in order to establish justice that some individuals must be separated out to the rest should be kept safe, but justice mostly has to do with how a society at large functions.  But justice cannot be seen as strictly punishing the wicked.  Punishing is a negative and justice is a positive and we cannot create a positively just society by negative action.

But what does a just society actually look like?  Does every person have what they need?  Or do they just have the means to obtain what they need? Is justice a society that considers itself safe?  How much safety is required for there to be justice?  Does a society have to both enforce their fears and their anxieties?  What is the cost of a society without fear?

What is the basic foundation of justice?  Many people consider that law is the foundation of justice.  What law?  Who can create a perfectly just law?  How should such a law be enforced?  And can law and enforcement, by themselves, create a just society?

Others think a just society is created by giving everyone basic rights.  What kind of rights?  Can freedom of speech give justice to everyone?  If someone has the freedom to threaten, then is that part of the foundation of justice? If some rights cannot be allowed, and justice is based on rights, then where is justice found?  What balance of rights can create justice?