Choices

There are not many excuses in life but there are plenty of mitigating circumstances.  A good friend of mine posted a link to the above morality maxim on her Facebook page.  Not wanting to embroil myself in an internet kerfuffle, I made one reductio ad absurdum comment and I then backed off when her reply had at least one word typed out in emphatic CAPS.  My comment-repeated here only for purposes of clarification-was "What about Sophie's Choice?  Was she alone to blame?" My point, of course, was not well received, or more appropriately stated, not fully appreciated.

The main point of the aphorism is actually quite valid and I agree with the sentiment in principle.  I am, by nature, a determinist and for every calamity that seems to befall some hapless people, I believe there lies an imprudent decision somewhere in their past.  And if some maladjusted misanthrope pulls the trigger on an ill advised caper, then he alone has chosen to do so and he must suffer the consequences agreed upon by twelve reasonable people.  Even if that reprobate was raised by five different foster families and Mom is a prostitute and Dad was killed in a drug deal gone bad.

So what then, is so objectionable about the missive that it shouts a right wing, fundamentalist sentimentality?  Simple, it's the final word; Period.  And not only does this graphic close the door on any and all discussion, but the person who originally posted it (not my friend) added a comment along with the graphic; PERIOD.  Just to make sure, I assume, we don't try to read in any ambiguities.  And yes, it was typed in CAPS.  She is shouting at us and we haven't even begun the debate!  And apparently she feels that there is no debate.  But it is not this inability to acknowledge the gray areas in life that troubles me.  It is the seeming lack of empathy that interests me about this post.  Was it about a specific incident?  Like the Travon Martin case?  I don't know.  It really seems to be just a generalized statement on the condition of man, or a man's life, since it was a stand alone Facebook post.

I deem the persons who post these kinds of missives to be normally kind and good hearted people.  At least the people I friend and know on Facebook who might agree with this maxim are kind and earnest human beings.  But to emphatically post such a missive, without an explanation about a specific incident toward which it is directed seems un-empathetic at best and condescending at worst.  Here is the delicate point upon which I tread:  I have noticed that many of the people who agree with the sentiment expressed in this platitude consider themselves devout Christians.   It seems incongruous to me for people of faith to disagree that this sentiment, as it stands in an isolated Facebook post, demonstrates a certain lack of empathy.  But I would like to discuss an observation that may lead to some understanding.

Another debate, this one with a live person, gave me some insight.  I was having a discussion with an acquaintance, who shall remain nameless, about his work with incarcerated women in a state prison.  He is teaching them so that they may earn their GED.  I expressed my admiration for his work and how both rewarding and difficult it must be.  We started to discuss the nature of the women in prison, and being the conservative libertarian that he is, he expressed little sympathy for the women as they only have themselves to blame for their situation. But he did feel it was his duty to help them.  I averred that not everyone is born with equal abilities and with the same opportunities in life (we are all born with equal rights) so we should take that into consideration when judging these women-not to excuse them-but just to understand their situation.  That way, we may better help them to make good choices.  His response shocked me into silence, a vary rare occurrence indeed.  He said "What, are you Hitler?  That is akin to believing in eugenics".  I should note, as it pertains to the current discussion, that at the outset of our conversation he acknowledged that his world view flows form The Bible and God, as opposed to mine, I suppose, which originates from the natural rights of Man a' la Rousseau and Spinoza.  Thus implying we would never come to agree.

Which I suppose is true since, I can only assume, he thinks all secular humanists who believe in a natural order theorize like Hitler (who was raised a Catholic BTW) and I believe him to be quite unempathetic for a religious man.  But it is this idea that he believes (I can only guess) that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with an immaculate free will to choose good versus evil, that interests me.  For I think this is the root of what I consider to be a right wing, Christian fundamentalist view of human behavior.  Our souls are perfect as God has created us and it is only in this corporeal life that we choose mischief.  If circumstances are not going our way, we can choose to put it in God's hands, and if we do not, we have only ourselves to blame.  Even the most wretched and downtrodden among us have chosen to look away from God.  When looked at from this point of view it is easy to see why someone who professes a life based on The Bible can seem un-empathetic.  They do sincerely want to help someone who might find themselves in an untenable situation. But they believe that  this person only has himself to blame since God has given everyone the same free will to choose between good and evil.

I am not criticizing nor condoning this world view.  I am just trying to understand what I, and other like minded liberals, perceive to be a lack of empathy by some right leaning Christians. And let me be clear that by lack of empathy I in no way mean they don't care.  I believe they do care very much about helping others.  They might have sympathy, but they do not have empathy.