Saturday, February 19, 2005

Stop this nonsense.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish in the sea, over the birds in the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
- Genesis 1:26

Had I not read an interesting posting regarding human instincts being like animal instincts in SuaraMalaysia, I wouldn't have known that April 14 2003 was the date when scientists have successfully managed to map 99% of our human genome sequence.

According to the writer, these findings are significant because *quote*"it opens up a whole new world of science that was previously unexplored and gives the human race more control over its destiny. Secondly, it finally provided the scientific proof that we are all indeed just animals - similar in more ways than many of us want to believe. We share more than 90% of our gene sequence with animals such as rats and monkeys. Let's face it, Humans are animals. Why then do we do so much to deny our most basic "animal instinct" and accept that society can dictate how we can or cannot live? *unquote*

I beg your pardon.

More funny 'ideas' cropped up.
*quote*While there is a need to govern our behaviour and relationship when it affects other human beings, why is there a need to dictate how one can or cannot harm oneself? Why do we have to prevent two mature and consenting adults from trading sex and satisfying their animal need for sex and lust? Why do we have to prevent mature gay men from bonking in the privacy of their own homes? Or from getting married? Why do we stop people from getting highs on marijuana when we know the effects are temporary and reversible?*unquote*

It seems contradictory that the writer was imposing a law to govern human behaviour that would affect one another but abolish those that is preventing him from living his life as a living hell so long he doesn't drag anyone else into it.

How does one lead a barbaric lifestyle without affecting those around him? I wonder.

For instance, if one were to fall prey to his sexual instincts like animals, he would be transmitting all sorts of diseases to his multiple sexual partners. Has that not affected another person's life?

One can argue till the moon turns blue but no man can live his life without affecting the people around him.

It is most interesting that no matter how we think we are not, when we are making certain claims and commenting on a certain way that we should behave, we are; as C.S Lewis in Mere Christianity puts it, "appealing to some kind of standard behaviour which we expect the other person to know about." By suggesting that we should 'free the animal instincts' in us, the writer too, is expecting that we should follow this new 'code of behaviour'.

He further claimed that Man have "humanized" barbaric acts like values imposition so that it is easier to live with each other and that defending values are merely an act of cultural domination to ensure that one group of invididuals can dominate over the pack which is basically, animal instincts.

I beg to differ.

If 'values' and 'standards' were defended merely for cultural domination purposes, I would most like to know which nation's culture are we adopting as 'most acceptable norms'? Yes, there have been differences in moralities between different civilizations and different ages; but one must note that no such differences that expand across nations are so vast, that one should either accept this set of moralities or another.

For instance, a African would agree just as much as an American that a man should keep his promise to whom it has been made. This code of human behaviour is not invented by one nation and followed by another. As C.S Lewis had written," It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law of Rule or fair play or decent behaviour, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals( as what the writer claimed we are), but they(the animals) could not quarrel in the human sense of the word."

"Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is wrong. And there is no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are."

The point that I am trying to make is that all human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.

We are not animals. In the matter of speech, if we were, why the need to 'free the animal instinct' in us? That would only show that we have another set of human behaviour that we ought to follow for we know very clearly in our minds, have Right and Wrong in it.

Lastly, C.S Lewis asked: "If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?"

Saying that we are more like animals than we thought would only be shifting our responsibility to such a lame excuse, because we cannot bear to face the fact that we have fallen short of the Law of Human Nature to behave decently.


Post a Comment

<< Home