Majority Rule?

When a rapist gets raped in prison, nobody sheds a tear. As a matter of fact, such rape is commonly perceived as a kind of “poetic” or “rough” justice. But, if raping a rapist can be perceived as justice, then how can rape be condemned at all?

If rape is “okay” in any circumstance, then it can be argued that it is “okay” in every circumstance. For example, if it is okay to rape a man who has raped, then it must also be okay to rape the man who rapes a man who has raped. And if you argue that it is only okay to rape a man who has raped an “innocent” victim, then rapists everywhere will rejoice in their claim that their victims were all “sluts” who deserved to be raped, as incidentally – and not coincidentally – many rapists, if not most, already do!

And as these arguments fail, only one justification for rape as a form of justice remains. And that is by some “majority” or “consensus”; i.e. the “will of the people”. And this in fact ends up being the sole justification in most “Western” societies for all forms of justice, from municipal to capital punishment; and, by majority rule, rape as well (when the victim is judged guilty by popular consensus).

But, if the majority rules, then what did Germany do “wrong” in the 30s and early 40s? And what did “the South” do “wrong” before the American Civil War? What about the Mongol Hordes in the 13^th century? Or even ISIS in the 21^st? All of these groups maintained a majority rule within their own ranks. So, if majority rule determines justice, then all the extreme forms of eugenics, slavery, barbarism and religious intolerance, can be rightly declared as legitimate forms of justice! And if these can be seen as just and fair, then why not child rape?

Sadly, as if to mark my point, history has indeed seen child rape ruled “fair and just” by a majority rule in even the most unexpected social consensus, such as in traditional Jewish Law. So my point seems not only arguable, but repeatedly proven by historical precedence. And my point is only this: majority rule does not, and never has, justified rape, or murder, or imprisonment, or even parking fines. Majority rule justifies nothing. And even if it did, then am I not the “majority” when I'm the only one in a room with a gun? Or when me and my friends are the strongest gang in town? Isn't that precisely all any government authority really is? The biggest and strongest “majority” in town?

Of course I'm not presenting anything new here. This is all one of the oldest antiestablishment arguments there is. But, I raise it only because I believe in real justice. Not “higher” justice (that's just another form of majority rule), but “natural” justice, and true justice! And it is this belief that keeps me hanging on, and keeps me blogging. And it was this belief that also caused me to stop raping, and killing, and to stop believing in majority rule, not even my own.

[J.D. September 30, 2016]

The Other Side Of Empathy

Here's something to think about: When you remember what you were doing a moment ago, or a year ago, and recall how you felt doing it, all you are really doing is empathizing with the memory of the experience! The experience, and your memory of it, are no longer “real” in the sense that they are no longer manifested. The person you were no longer exists, and therefore the act of empathizing is no more – and no less - “real” than any empathy you might feel for another person; even if you don't know that person on a personal level.

In other words, the sense we all have of being who wer are, as “persistent” beings, is no more than a construct of our ability to empathize with other people and with our past selves. When we empathize with our past selves, we are in fact empathizing with an “other” person that no longer exists!

Think about it, and think about what it means. A person who lacked the ability to empathize, such as the mythical “sociopath”, would be incapable of simple self-awareness, much less self-centeredness or selfishness! It also strongly implies that our empathy for others is really just another form of self-awareness, or simply “awareness” since the idea of “self” is no longer based on or in reality!

[J.D. September 14, 2016]