THE POOR
SUMMARY
Social difference is
dismissed as either natural to, or inherent in, the human species . The
attitude of the Society toward such differences where they
nevertheless exist is then discussed. It is concluded that the Society has
obligations to
the
poor and disadvantaged which are limited only by its commitment to its Aim.
It is also found that the enduring poor gain and enjoy moral superiority over
their more fortunate contemporaries.
The moral stance of the Society of HumanKind on social difference in human
society rests on the Principles of Unity and Peace. Those Principles, and
other implications of the Axioms and Dogma, are applied to this aspect of our
social lives in the Treatise on the Individual. The Treatise dismisses the
possibility that social difference is natural to the human condition or
inherent in our species. The conclusion must be that such differences as do
exist in our societies, whether based on standing, status, power or on any
other criterion, are a consequence of our own actions, or of our inability to
control all those factors in our environment that have an influence on our
social life.
The uncertainty of all human knowledge and understanding, set out in the
Treatise on Knowledge, reinforces that conclusion. The limit on our ability to
understand ourselves, or grasp all that affects us in our environment described
in that Treatise is such that it leaves open the possibility that we may never
be able to determine fully, or control effectively, the structure and outcome
of our relationships with each other. In effect, the Treatise suggests that
we may not have the faculties or abilities required to eliminate difference
between individuals within our societies.
In sum, the first founding book of the Society, the 'Foundations', rejects
difference between individuals as an inherent or natural condition of human
society while accepting that it may nevertheless be unavoidable. However,
'Foundations' does not then go on to discuss the question raised by that
conclusion, i.e. that of the attitude of the Society toward that aspect of our
social order where it exists. That issue is examined in this Essay.
It is best to begin the discussion by repeating the inference drawn from the
Axioms, Dogma and Principles in the Treatise on the Individual. Acceptance of
the Axioms and choice of the Dogma removes the possibility of there being any
necessary correlation between the social position of an individual and their
merit or value. The Society will reject any implicit judgement of the worth
of any individual based on their occupation of any particular position in our
social hierarchy during life. Final adjudication on that issue must always be
deferred to the period beyond the achievement of the Objective of the Dogma.
However, as has already been noted, that stance does not address the problem of
the attitude the Society of HumanKind and its membership should take toward
social difference. In particular, it provides no advice or guidance on
whether they should tolerate hierarchical systems of social relationships or
willingly accept any social position other than one of their own choosing.
To the first of those issues the Principle of Progress applies. It requires
adherents of the Society to accept the need for a level of social order which
is compatible with the maintenance of the Conditions of the Dogma, a demand
also directly derived from an acceptance of the Axioms and choice of the Dogma.
When the effect of the Principle of Unity is added to that of Progress it is
clear that social difference can properly be tolerated by those who choose the
Dogma. The Society and its adherents can therefore accept such distinctions
where they can be seen to be necessary to maintain the level of social order
required by the Conditions of the Objective of the Dogma and the Aim of the
Society.
If however, human society ever progresses to the point at which
social difference is no longer necessary for those purposes then, at that
moment, all followers of the Dogma, and thus every adherent of the Society of
HumanKind, will cease to regard difference and disadvantage as justified.
They will come to that conclusion even if those features of our society remain
unavoidable due to our inability, identified by the Treatise on Knowledge, to
effect the changes in our social structures that would finally remove them.
That stance of the Society has a consequence for the second issue raised
earlier - that of the attitude of members of the Society to their own social
position. While social distinctions and disadvantages do remain either
necessary or unavoidable to the maintenance of the Conditions of the Dogma,
they must be endured by all who choose the Aim of the Society. That
requirement on
adherents to the Society arises from the Principle 3.2. Every adherent of the
Society of HumanKind should therefore be prepared to accept and tolerate
whatever social position it falls to them occupy in life.
However, that tolerance should not preclude them from striving to change or
improve their social standing or advantage, provided always that they do not
breach the Principle of Peace in consequence. The Society requires all its
adherents to confine any self-serving effort they may make to improve their own
lot strictly within the limits set by their overriding obligation to discharge
their Responsibility to further its Aim. Which, in simple terms, means that
they should not put the stability of our social order at risk by any attempt
they may make to change their social, political or economic standing.
By an extension of that individual precept it follows that the only acceptable
justification for any purposeful effort by the Society as a whole to change a
pattern of hierarchical relationships, or the social structures that support
such distinctions within any human society, arises from its obligation to
pursue its Aim. Only the pursuit of that vital purpose will allow the
Society, in rare and unusual circumstances, to seek to use its authority to
bring about a change in the degree of difference or disadvantage as between
individuals or groups within any community. Even then such action by the
Society should only emerge as an incidental adjunct to actions designed and
clearly intended to achieve its Aim or discharge its Responsibility to its successors.
The negative form of that argument can be set out to reinforce the point being
made. None of the exceptions mentioned in this Essay will justify a forceful
change in either the position of an individual or the structure of any society
when it is undertaken solely for the purpose of increasing, removing or
reducing social difference as such. The limitation on the range of choice
available to the Society in these matters is set by the Principle of Progress.
The Society and its adherents should always tolerate an unjust or unequal
social system, or a position of personal disadvantage, rather than risk our
future by unnecessarily tampering with the continued stability of the society
on which our survival and progress, and hence the achievement of the Aim of
the Society, depends.
It will be apparent that the privileged in any particular social system will
more easily accept these restrictions and requirements than those who may be
disadvantaged by them. It is on the poor and dispossessed of our communities,
however that disadvantage may be defined, that the weight of the discipline of
the Principles will fall most heavily, a burden which will be especially
irksome to adherents of the Society who may find themselves amongst the
disadvantaged. They will clearly appreciate that their endurance and
tolerance will benefit, not simply themselves, but equally those who might seem
to be their oppressors. They will know that the whole of humanity will be the
beneficiaries if their sufferings contribute to a realisation of the Aim of the
Society.
What comfort then, can the Society of HumanKind offer the poor? First, the
Society can support the disadvantaged by an affirmation and proclamation of the
moral credit they gain by their endurance of suffering during life for the
benefit of others. The Society will value their patience under an unjust
imbalance in human society, recognising and appreciating it as a proper effort
to discharge their wider obligation to protect the Conditions of the Dogma.
It will acknowledge and proclaim that their tolerance of disadvantage contains
an element of altruism and self-sacrifice that justifies a position of moral
superiority by the poor over their more fortunate fellows.
Secondly, the Society can comfort the disadvantaged by placing a constant
injunction on all
its more fortunate members to honour and respect the enduring poor, and always
have in mind their sacrifice made for us all. The outward expression of that
obligation must be an acknowledgement by all adherents that they should give
thanks to the poor for their endurance in foregoing all the comforts, benefits
and securities available in our present social life in order to allow the whole
of humanity to gain the apotheosis which will follow a realisation of the Aim
of the Society of HumanKind.
However, the Society and its members should not otherwise ignore the suffering
of the poor, nor fail to mitigate their privations in ways that do not conflict
with the maintenance of a social order permissible under the Principle of
Progress. The Principle of Peace imposes a general injunction on the Society
that it should foster the full development of every individual as a requirement
for the achievement of the Objective of the Dogma, and hence the realisation of
its Aim. Accordingly, the Society is under as clear an obligation never to
forget the poor, nor ever cease to have their individual welfare, progress and
development in mind, as it is to promote and protect the stability of our
society.
All an application of the Principle of Progress to this question implies is
that the concern of the Society for the improvement of the conditions of the
poor should always be limited by the need to protect the social stability and
continuity on which the survival and progress of our species depend. There
are some difficult distinctions to be made here, and much for the Councils and
Committees of the Society to ponder.
Finally, the poor for their part should draw comfort from the teachings of the
Society in the Treatise on Morality and elsewhere, on the subject of our
salvation and our life following the realisation of its Aim. From that source
will come an understanding that to endure a life of poverty and privation in
life is to accumulate wealth and standing in our immortal epoch, when all the
moral debts and credits of our mortal era can be fully and finally reconciled.
|