Pol Pot was enamoured by the Communistic or communal promise presented by Marx and Mao’s China. When he took power, he immediately forced the evacuation of the capital, Phnom Penh, and imposed an agrarian lifestyle for all. He felt a distrust of Western influences and felt that imperialism/capitalism was just a way to keep the peasants working hard for the rest of their lives for the monarchs in charge. He ruled by what can be described as a Nationalistic Communism. Although he was initially guided by a beneficent vision of his country, which emphasized the restoration of the ancient Cambodian culture, I saw once again the same attribute of paranoia inherent in all dictators. Pol Pot became suspicious of anyone who might challenge his authority, and he executed (estimates vary) about 1.6 million people, or 1 in every 4 Cambodians. Those targeted specifically included Buddhist monks, intellectuals, etc. They were led to torture chambers and tortured until they confessed to charges that were alleged upon them, whether they were true or not. Stalin did the same in his regime. He became so paranoid in his later years that he even executed an aid of his who had been loyal to him for over 40 years. The Khmer Rouge eventually arrested Pol Pot and placed him under house arrest. The UN took over the country hereafter temporarily until new leadership could be established. I would like you to watch an interview done by a journalist with Pol Pot while he was under house arrest. It is about 15 minutes long, and the links are provided below:
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQMyX80jCF8
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qhgmfnRJio
It is interesting to note how soft-spoken he is; he constantly justifies what he has done. I have to ask myself how these events occur, or where do the roots lie? If I trace the roots intellectually, I am left with the power that is given to dictators by the people. It seems to me that nationalism is a very dangerous concept, and when there is tremendous energy given to it, what I like to call the “mob mentality” takes over; and one thing I find very disturbing about a mob, is that is principally guided by emotional motives while leaving reason aside. I also believe that a population capable of fully using the faculty of critical thinking cannot declare blind allegiance to an arbitrary identity like a state or country; it simply would be incapable, logically, to do so.
What are your thoughts? How and why do these events occur? Please leave your comments and let me know what you all think…
(Please do not comment if you think that violence is an inherent tendency of mankind as we are looking for causes/solutions here. We are assuming that the human nature is capable of change.)
HUMANKIND'S PROPENSITY FOR SELFISHNESS
ReplyDeleteReinhold Niebuhr once wrote, "Whenever modern idealists are confronted with the divisive and corrosive effects of man's self-love, they look for some immediate cause for this perennial tendency, usually in some specific form of social organization. One school holds that men would be good if only political institutions would not corrupt them, another believes that they would be good if the prior evil of faulty economic organizations could be eliminated. Or another school thinks of this evil as no more than ignorance, and therefore waits for more perfect educational processes to redeem man from his partial and particular loyalties. But no school asks how is it that an essentially good man could have produced corrupting and tyrannical political organizations or exploiting economic organizations, or fanatical and superstitious religious organizations" (p. 19, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, 1945).
THE CONSTRAINED VISION: HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY SELF-CONCERNED, WITH A PROPENSITY TO BECOME SELFISH, EVEN IF THEY MAKE A CONSCIOUS COMMITMENT TO BEHAVE ALTRUISTICALLY
ReplyDeleteThomas Sowell has written, "Adam Smith provided a picture of man which may help make concrete the nature of a constrained vision. Writing as a philosopher in 1759, nearly twenty years before he became famous as an economist, Smith said in his Theory of Moral Sentiments:
‘Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would react upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would, too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these human sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquility as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he would snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren. . . .’
"The moral limitations of man in general, and his egocentricity in particular, were neither lamented by Smith nor regarded as things to be changed. They were treated as inherent facts of life, the basic constraint in his vision. The fundamental moral and social challenge was to make the best of the possibilities which existed within that constraint, rather than dissipate energies in an attempt to change human nature—-an attempt that Smith treated as both vain and pointless. For example, if it were somehow possible to make the European feel poignantly the full pain of those who suffered in China, this state of mind would be ‘perfectly useless’, according to Smith, except to make him ‘miserable’, without being of any benefit to the Chinese. Smith said: ‘Nature, it seems, when she loaded us with our own sorrows, thought that they were enough, and therefore did not command us to take any further share in those of others, than what was necessary to prompt us to relieve them.’
"Instead of regarding man’s nature as something that could or should be changed, Smith attempted to determine how the moral and social benefits desired could be produced in the most efficient way, within that constraint. Smith approached the production and distribution of moral behavior in much the same way he would later approach the production and distribution of material goods. Although he was a professor of moral philosophy, his thought processes were already those of an economist. However, the constrained vision is by no means limited to economists. Smith’s contemporary in politics, Edmund Burke, perhaps best summarized the constrained vision from a political perspective when he spoke of ‘a radical infirmity in all human contrivances’, an infirmity inherent in the fundamental nature of things. Similar views were expressed by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers: ‘It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies—-ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the Institutor, Man.’
"Clearly, a society cannot function humanely, it at all, when each person acts as if his little finger is more important than the lives of a hundred million other human beings. But the crucial word here is act. We cannot ‘prefer ourselves so shamelessly and blindly to others’ when we act, Smith said, even if that is the spontaneous or natural inclination of our feelings. In practice, people on many occasions ‘sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others’, according to Smith, but this was due to such intervening factors as devotion to moral principles, to concepts of honor and nobility, rather than to loving one’s neighbor as oneself.
"Through such artificial devices, man could be persuaded to do for his own self-image or inner needs what he would not do for the good of his fellow man. In short, such concepts were seen by Smith as the most efficient way to get the moral job done at the lowest psychic cost. Despite the fact that this was a moral question, Smith’s answer was essentially economic—-a system of moral incentives, a set of trade-offs rather than a real solution by changing man. One of the hallmarks of the constrained vision is that it deals in trade-offs rather than solutions."
(pp. 11-14, A Conflict of Visions, 2002)
I agree, Jason, with most of what you've said, especially with your last statement of Smith's economic question being one of trade-offs rather than a real solution by changing man. I feel that the whole consciousness of man must change (not be changed by anyone else, but by oneself, etc).
ReplyDeleteI believe, however, the elimination of scarcity would enable man to naturally override its there-is-not-enough consciousness, at least externally. Internally, however, the greater change needs to be made. The drive to become MORE is never-ending. People want to become more powerful, rich, attractive, intelligent, etc. What they are presently is never enough or good enough. The 'inadequacy mentality' feeds upon itself; it must stop by decision not by some outer stimuli. This 'inadequacy mentality' is, in my opinion, what drives most 'evil' persons to commit their actions, not so much because it is inherent in their nature, but because the are trying to prove something to themselves - that if they accomplish this they will achieve that, etc.
HUMAN NATURE
ReplyDelete"Human nature" is the set of traits that humans share, and this set of traits is the confluence of at least two factors: self-concern and free will.
On the one hand, human nature is influenced by self-concern. This self-concern is the result of Darwinian evolution. Modern humans have avoided extinction and have survived for millions of years because, among other factors, they have inherited from their hominid ancestors a biologically grounded self-concern. And a modern human exhibits this biological self-concern in their body's involuntary functions. When a person needs oxygen, they breath. When a person needs nutrients, their stomach growls. When a person needs to eliminate waste, their bowels move and their bladder bulges. When a person touches fire or a thorn, their limbs involuntarily retract. And a modern human also exhibits this biological self-concern in their psyche's involuntary functions as well. When danger threatens the physical well being of their self or their family or their tribe, their first impulse is to fight or flee. And when something threatens a person's psychological well-being, their first impulse is to invoke a psychological defense mechanism to protect their self.
On the other hand, human nature is also influenced by free will. "Free will" is a person's ability to choose one choice from a set of choices. When a person encounters another person, they have a set of choices: ignore, hurt, or help that other person. When a person exercises their free will childishly, their biological self-concern, which originally enhanced their survival, can now become excessive. And this excessive self-concern, which is better known as "selfishness", can effectively blind them to the needs of others. However, when a person exercises their free will wisely, they may notice that when they ignore an opportunity to help another person they experience emptiness or guilt, when they fulfill an opportunity to help another person they experience joy, and when they commit their life to helping others they experience the ultimate joy--a peace that passes understanding, bliss, a higher purpose.
Overall, then, human nature is influenced by both self-concern and free will. Self-concern is biological, but free will is volitional. Self-concern is a constant, but free will is a variable. As a result, humans are biologically self-concerned, with a propensity to become selfish. However, when a person commits their life to care for others, their commitment acts as a counterweight to their inherent self-concern, empowering them to live less selfishly and more altruistically.