By Karen Barna
Investigating theories in the psychic life of subjugation and control through various use of power we come to understand that a “mediator” is needed in order to instill a conscious in man and teach him how to curb his “animalistic functions.” These mediators usually take the form of parents, priests or ministers, and governmental authority. It has been postulated by Georg Hegel that methods of subjugation and control actually create man’s “unhappy consciousness.” Freud’s thoughts ran parallel to this ideology when he wrote “Civilization and Its Discontents.” Judith Butler postulates that the very notion of conscious is a misnomer, an unsuitable term in its application to philosophy simply because man is bound to his “animal functions” and no matter how hard he may turn his will away from himself, his only position is inevitable sin, or otherwise known as transgression against law(s). In turning away his will to abide by that of another, he is only postponing the inevitable; violation of an interdiction. Can we all be good 100% of the time. Is not man controlled by his narcissism? Butler postulates that recasting of the “will” is not, properly speaking, the will of a subject, nor is it an effect fully cultivated by and through social norms; it is, Butler suggests, the site at which the social implicates the psychic in its very formation – or, to be more precise, as its very formation and formativity. I want to suggest that conscious is in itself a formation of the biological and one’s proclivity to abide by the will of another in being compliant or reflexive to social standards is actually a tendency that is hard-wired into the constitution of the individual’s personality itself. This innate tendency can be re-created through the simple biological paring of two people who share the same personality trait or it can be imposed upon by a “mediating” agency, which Hegel, Neitzsche, and Freud all discuss. Biologically trying to re-create it is called eugenics, and socially reinforcing it is called breeding. I propose that man’s proclivity for the absence of conscience, like gender identity, is biologically pre-determined.
Many people possess the mind of a psychopath, yet these people don’t go around braking laws, being escorted in and out of penitentiaries, and wear black skull caps. They live right next door to us and have acquired the veil that society says he or she must wear in order to live within the constructs of a formally created political union known as a nation, state, or kingdom. They have assimilated and acquired the “mask of sanity.” Researching these notions or ideas has reminded me of a documentary that I saw which featured the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of psychopathic brains and how these brains were biologically different in activity than the activity of normal individual brains. The scientist responsible for promoting the research work and this documentary had his brain evaluated. He obviously didn’t think he was a psychopath and so they decided they would use his brain as a comparison against the abnormal brains. What was discovered was that his brain functioned just like a psychopathic brains. They stopped the research and said well MRI’s are not a successful diagnostic tool in identifying psychopathic brains, but I wonder, is it really? Could there exist the possibility that the research work was being biased?
Years ago, the catholic church called termed the activity of engaging in prohibited behaviors as “indulgences,” and the clergy of the time went as far as accepting payment as a form of forgiveness from individuals in exchange for the promise of eternal life. Too wrought with pain by the reality of their own wrong doing, the wealthy bribed there way into eternal paradise. I have suddenly received a visual. Picture this. A sold out concert. You want entry into the concert hall. You bribe the “big guy” standing watch at the door with $10,000 and your daughter as an added bonus. I’m guessing it must have been a lot like this when the wealthy “gained entrance into heaven.“ God will like me now? I paid him off. I’m thinking god might be a lot like Flo Rida.
However, Nietzsche questioned the value of morality and postulated on moral relativism. I think he might of liked hanging out with Flo Rida now that I think of it. They could of pondered moral relativism together. Moral relativism concerns itself with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. One of its postulates states nobody is objectively “right” or “wrong”; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it. Since moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India to the present day in diverse fields including philosophy, science, and religion I feel Neitzsche and Flor Rida would have a lot to talk about. If I have my day on the Enterprises’ Holodeck, it won’t been Einstein versus Newton. It’ll be a night presenting the philosophical discussions of Neitzsche and Flor Rida; moral philosophy meets modern day rap music with a little stage entertainment to boot.
“God is not dead. God is Flo Rida!” ~The American Ethos
Still, even despite discussions involving morality and conscience, we are still subject to the local, state, and federal laws of a country. We can imaginatively ponder the weight of either side of the argument, and even delve into a philosophical discussion about its worth to and in our lives. But at the end of the discussion, it will still be against the law to go over the various posted local speed limit signs. When we live in a country, even visit a foreign country, we are its guests and citizens, and are thereby subject to all its precepts. In terms of global diversity and cultural controversy, discussions in moral relativism holds immense weight when you think about questions like, Who’s God is the true god? And, Who is really right and who is really wrong? Whose good is the true good? And, Whose bad is the true bad? Most laws that have to do with wrong doing, have to do with loss, both moral and financial, or the prospect of loss. How much money did you lose when that guy robbed you? How much quality of life did you lose as result of your physical pain and suffering due to your accident? How much did you lose when your wife lite your car on fire when she caught you cheating in it? And How much is a human life worth today? How much is a person’s vested time worth?
The philosophical discussions surrounding the worth of a human life and the value of time are incredibly important, not only to the branch of philosophy, but to the branch of modern day medicine and law. I wonder what legal attorneys today value a human life at when settling a case? An arm, $30,000. A leg, $50,000. A complete human life, maybe $100,000. What if you lost almost 20 years of your life due to some medical mishap or wrong doing of another. Some new medical procedure or pharmacology put you in “a coma” for an extended length of time. What do you think the lawyers would value the loss of a person’s time at? Or would they even consider it at all?