Help yourself to "The Help"

In between reading the "deeper philosphical books" I try to vary my reading - and often have 2 to 3 books on the go.  So before finishing my "morality" book, I read "The help".  It is a book about the black maids of middle class white women in the American south around the late 50s and early 60s.  It views these lives through two of the maids themselves and daughter of one of the employing women.  The book was written very well - got you in and kept you there - as it described the process of writing a book about..... the lives of the maids!  A book about the writing of the book.

So what was it about?   On the surface it was about class structure and racism - and entrenched attitudes.  The author seemed to be saying how thin the line actually was between the two groups - maids and mistresses - compared to the societally constructed "reality".

To some extent we see the same between say migrant moslem women and western 'Christian' middle class Eurpean decendants in Australia.  There is a political, religious and socially constructed  divide - accentuated by the hijab or burkha - but maybe only a very thin line of difference in reality.  How do we see past the way society conditions us to think of others?

"Born again" Christians construct a difference between themselves and others: saved/unsaved; found/lost; in the kingdom of God_light/Kingdom of satan_darkness; saved/unsaved; forgiven/unforgiven; going to heaven/going to hell etc.  It is very threatening to many to consider that only a very thin line (if at all) separates them/believers from unbelievers.  The constructed gulf becomes wide - emphasing what they have in Christ versus what they (and the unbelievers) would not have if they were not in Christ. [And this is similar in other religions]. It fractures the human family. Breaks the natural empathy and love that should/could flow bewteen people.

The boat people - again a political and socially constructed distinction.

So the book "the help" has a message that can help us - not to repeat the dehumanising class/ethnic/ faith distinctions that are built up and which many of us accept and embrace because it becomes a "norm" rather than something to be challenged.

Free Will

Continuing with Harris's book (the moral landscape), I have now read the chapter he entitled "good and evil" in which he tackles the issue of free will and accountability - from a scientific perspective rather than a moral law perspective.  He argues that "questions of human well-being run deeper than any explicit code of morality" - the latter which he asserts is a relatively very recent development. He sees a progression from genetic changes in the brain which allowed for increasingly complex interactions which became the basis for cultural norms and laws etc.  He considers that "clearly, morality is shaped by cultural norms to a great degree".

Harris restated his reasons for dismissing revealed religion as a source of moral guidance namely: "there are many revealed religions....and they offer mutually incompatible doctrine; the scriptures of many religions...countenance patently unethical practices like slavery (counter to wellbeing); the faculty we use to validate religious precepts...is something we bring to scripture; and that reasons given for believing 'revealed scripture' are either risible or non-exisitent'.

In this chapter, he uses a number of scenarios and examples of how we judge good and evil and moral accountability - and points to the driving focrces that genetics, upbringing and tumors (for example) can have on the brain (outside of the indiviudal control) that can shape 'evil' behaviour.  He discusses the illusion of free will - while somehow still prescribing to human responsibility and a scientific basis for acting out human values..."our sense of free well presents a compelling mystery - on the one hand it is impossible to make sense of it in casual terms - on the other hand - there is a  powerful subjective sense that we are the authors of our own actions".

Of course, I am only half way through the book - so I shall see how he builds on all of this.  It has been the subject of a number of articles in the New Scientists over recent years - the issue of the mind, and conciousness and free will - and all makes for fascinating discussion and implications.

on with the journey

What's the point?

I once said - very naively - that I "wanted to work it out before I died".  And what was the "it"?  Why, the meaning of life of course.  I think I am coming to the sad realisation that this might be a little beyond the potential scope.  If I can't then work out the "meaning of LIFE", then perhaps I might get a little glimmer at least of what 'life' has meant for me.  This one conscious bit of stardust.

But really, it is about the journey and being able to reflect on it as I go along.  Having started from a very conservative Christian viewpoint, I started to think (as in, think for myself rather than acepting what I had been told) and to read books that challenged Christian thinking and offered alternative perspectives of life.  It is some of these that I thought I might start sharing on this blog.  Its not that I have totally turned my back on my Christian history - but I do see things quite differently to what I once did - and still feel I have only started to scratch the surface on exploring this thing we call life.

The current book I am reading is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris (who also wrote 'The End of Faith').  Harris' viewpoint is that for too long scientists have abdicated their responsibility in the area of morality and ethics.  He argues that too many people on all sides say that science has nothing to contribute to these areas - that science can only deal in facts, and religion - or evolutionary psycology - is where the great moral and ethical issues are sorted out.

Harris builds his case around the idea that just as we have medical science around the notion of what denotes physical and psycological well being, that there is a science that needs to be built around what constitutes those morals and ethical choices that contribute to the wellbeing of people.  The idea of moral science - open to testing facts and revising them as more knowledge accrues - as opposed to ancient statements that may have little to do with the wellbeing of those involved (Harris argues that if these do contribute to wellbeing it is by accident rather than design!).  Or at least this is my take on it so far.

As I read more, I will describe what I am taking away from his book.  I will also start looking back over books I have read over the last decade or so and how they contributed to my thinking.