"Emotions run deep within our race. In many ways more deeply than in humans. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience. The control of feelings so that they do not control you."
The wise man who said this was Sarek, Spock’s father in the latest installation of the Star Trek movie series. He said this as words of advice to his son, Spock, who was undergoing an internal struggle throughout the movie, deciding whether to embrace his emotions or to reject them. A little context: Spock, who is a mix of two races, has a human mother and a Vulcan father. The Vulcan race hails from the planet Vulcan, and they practice the tradition of purging themselves of all emotion. This tradition “frees” their race from emotional binds so that they can make “better” decisions, based purely on logic. In this movie, Spock actually opts out of this Vulcan tradition and joins the human space military academy, Starfleet, instead of entering a Vulcan university and following in his father’s path.
Yes, this is a movie… And a fantastical one at that. But science fiction is a genre that is known to build upon the theories of science, in effect actuating in film and literature what scientists can only dream of. So for the sake of a blog that promotes forward thinking, what better source to reference than Star Trek, right?
The movie attempts to decipher what is truly the greater good. In the Vulcan sense, the greater good can only be determined through a rationale that is devoid of all emotion. Logic should prevail at all times, and thus there can only be one sensible solution to any problem. Therefore, an absolute greater good is easily identifiable, just like a solution to a math problem. If this type of reason were applied in a social sense on Earth, surely there would never be reason for war or conflict of any sort, and human rights would be indisputable.
One could argue that this type of society is exactly what we as humans are moving towards. The first evidence of this is the separation of church and state, which officially recognized the two as independent institutions and removed the church’s influence on state affairs. While illegal, however, it is still evident that religion does play a part in law establishment and policy making today, as it serves as the basis of much of our reason as individuals. So, while abortion is legal in the United States, it faced an incredible amount of opposition at the state and grassroots level, and still does, due undoubtedly to a major stigma imposed by churches, but affirmed by individuals. Religion, thus, shapes our values and emotions. So is the separation of church and state a start to the eventual separation of emotion and state, and possibly emotion and reason altogether?
If this is true, then what would morality and law be based on in the future, if not religion? Perhaps it would take the road of Descartes, a French philosopher who completely reeducated himself according to logical principles, the first of which being “I think, therefore I am.” The starting point for morality and human rights may very well be none other than the Golden Rule, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”
Food for thought, indeed. But so as not to bore you with length, this discussion will have to continue next time. Till then!
No comments:
Post a Comment