The World's Crises and the Ethic of Love

Profit-driven multinationals, underpinned by neo-liberalism and capitalism, are wreaking havoc on the global economy and diminishing the quality of life of the peoples of the world by making unethical financial decisions and by speculating on food prices and driving them through the roof, as it were. Added to this is the deleterious impact of oil prices on the world economy, the recent significant decreases notwithstanding. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made a timely call for a new world order, which should see international bodies such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations rebranded, refocused, and reinvigorated.

Some fundamental questions here though are these: Are Mr. Brown’s conceptions the answer to the problems we face? How can humanity solve the mercurial and interconnected gas and food crises that are contributing to food insecurity, increased poverty, and concomitant unease and discontent around the world? What can the G7 or G8 countries do? What role can the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) play to ameliorate or even obliterate the crises that threaten the existence of the human species? Can humanity save itself from itself as it moves steadily towards self-destruction, again?

Senator A. J. Nicholson, the opposition spokesman on justice, opined in the Sunday Gleaner of April 27, 2008 that Jamaica in particular, and I guess humanity in general, can save itself by embracing “a sense of community” and “togetherness” with good “captaincy” in piloting the ship of Jamaica through the current economic storm. I agree to the extent that this “sense of community” is driven by the ethic of love. It seems though that a few among us are bent on hoarding the world’s wealth at the expense of the many. I submit that we can only “save” ourselves by looking beyond ourselves. We should look to the ethics of Jesus. One of the integral aspects of such ethical considerations is the ethic of agapaic (Greek agape- “unconditional love”) love- love for God (spirituality), love for neighbour (community) and love for self (individuality). No one influenced by this ethic would sacrifice the very existence of his brother to the self-serving profit motif.

The reality is that many of the persons who run the multinational conglomerates do not even consider most of the world’s poor as their “brothers” and “sisters”. To them “community” is significant in so far as it enriches them. Their spirituality is woefully superficial and their individuality the god of their lives. They are filled with the spirit of Cain that rejects the eternal significance of brotherhood. They do not see themselves as their brothers’ keepers, if indeed they recognize the commonality of the humanity of all.

Gordon Brown’s call for interfaith dialogue as a segment of the new world order in the midst of the global economic downturn is significant. Indeed, the politics of interfaith dialogue is obviously a necessity in terms of the reduction of religion-propelled bigotry and international terrorism that has, at times, had a negative ripple effect on the world. However, I go further than Brown in calling the people of the world to the ethic of agapaic love that is enfleshed by Jesus and reflected most of the time in the Christian community.

If this ethic of love that champions a healthy balance between spirituality, community, and individuality does not pervade the human race, there is no escaping the large scale destruction that would envelope this planet we call earth. The Honorable Robert (“Bob”) Nesta Marley understood this when he called for “one love” in the world. That call is as relevant and urgent today as ever because there is “so much trouble in the world”. I trust that the hidden or suppressed human sensitivity of the money-hungry speculators among us would surface and contribute to their heeding the call of Jesus and Bob Marley!

Reflections on Abortion

Many people undoubtedly have passion-driven views about the controversial matter of abortion. It is obvious that some write with their feet in their mouths and others with their heads in the sand. Some of the views expressed in the Gleaner and elsewhere smack of blatant intellectual dishonesty and unreliability. In essence, many persons who have sought to make a contribution to the debate have actually obfuscated on the matter and veered off track on unbelievably scandalous tangents.

Some have pointed to the church’s apparent or perceived hypocrisy by virtue of moral laxity and failure pertaining to other matters and have concluded that it has no moral authority to take a position on the abortion question. This is an irrelevant conclusion or a “red herring” argument. It is an attempt at diverting attention from the fundamental issue at hand. I have noticed that whenever the church takes a stance on any moral or ethical issue, it is accused of hypocrisy by virtue of its imperfections and flaws. However, if it remains silent on the matter it is charged for being an irrelevant monolith. This is so preposterous. The fact is the church should be applauded for taking a stance on such a controversial and divisive issue. Whether it is right or wrong is another matter.

Many people have delineated the position that because abortion was secretly practiced in the face of the church’s apparent silence before the current debate instigated by the Jamican Government in its examination of the possibility of amending the abortion laws, it should keep its mouth shut relative to the debate. The fact is the church has always been against abortion. Its not constantly throwing its anti-abortion rhetoric at the public was not necessarily indicative of its approval of the matter. Silence does not necessarily equate to consent. Anyone who concludes otherwise is guilty of allowing him/herself to appear to be bereft of sound reasoning ability.

A significant number of persons have argued that abortion should be allowable and legalized with respect to rape and incest. They conclude that no woman should undergo the psychological and emotional agony of carrying a child to full term that was a result of a violation of her sexuality and biological integrity. The woman, they vehemently advocate, should have the right to abort the child with all the inhuman and animalistic memories that come along with it. Indeed, rape and incest are heinous and outrageous crimes against humanity that should carry severe penalties. However, the life of a developing human person should not be terminated by virtue of the action, whether acceptable or unacceptable, of a mature human person. If indeed we all have the right to life, then a foetus is possessive of such rights as well, notwithstanding the rights of the pregnant woman. One person’s rights should not contribute to the negation of another person’s rights. This means therefore that we end up with a moral dilemma with respect to both the foetus and the pregnant woman. A fundamental question here is this: Which is the greater right- the foetus’ right to life or the mother’s right to destroy the foetus’ life and preserve her psycho-emotional integrity?

Some are of the view that whenever prenatal abnormality and perceived “threat to maternal physical and mental health and well-being” are the critical considerations, then “safe” abortion should be allowed by law. Well, who has the right to play God and determine who should live and who should be terminated? Don’t all human beings, including those born with physical and mental abnormalities and disabilities, have a right to life? Are we saying that persons with prenatal and congenital and other disabilities should not have been permitted to enjoy life on this planet like the rest of us “perfect” human beings? No wonder we treat people with disabilities with such inhuman and ruthless disdain and contempt. It seems there are some people who are hell-bent on preserving the perceived integrity of the human species to the extent that those whose physical and mental wholeness has been compromised should be obliterated or removed from the rest of us. What do we say about the threat to the life of the human being that is developing in the womb? Isn’t the foetus’ mental health and well-being to be preserved as well? I suggest that everyone’s mental and physical wholeness is important, including that of the innocent foetus. Fundamentally, a threat is not a reality. Even when it blossoms into some semblance of reality, the rights of both the mother and the foetus should be held in tension.

Finally, others have presented a perspective that is sociological in nature. They maintain that it is better to abort a foetus than to bring it into a world of poverty, suffering, deprivation, and dehumanization. They appeal to their sense of the greater good. This has always been a problem in the realm of ethics. Who or what determines the “greater good”? If we take this position to its logical conclusion, then many, if not most, human persons should have been aborted! Many of us should not be here. Interestingly, a significant number of the persons who use this argument have themselves emerged from circumstances of abject lack, deficiency, dispossession, and oppression. They have become successes. Why shouldn’t all other human beings who have not laid their feet on the earth be allowed to make the most of life’s opportunities as well and become noble members of the human race against the odds when they emerge from the womb?

We must not pander to the whims and fancies of those among us who, with Hitler-like philosophies and personalities, would want to decimate parts of the human family in an attempt at preserving the integrity and purity of the human species. All human beings, born and unborn, have a right to life, as long as they have not willfully, intentionally, maliciously, and illegally terminated the life of another!