The Philia Proposal continuedThe second source is
modern materialism, the philosophy that claims to explain everything
by the laws of the material world. It held out the promise that,
with the progress of science and technology, want, hunger, sickness
and suffering would one day be eliminated. With respect to
inclusion, idealism undermined the 18th century humanist
belief that Reason was the one determining criteria that set
humanity apart from animals - and from those many humans that
appeared not to fully have the use of reason, as a result of age,
sex, status, race or malady, thereby justifying their exclusion from
active citizenship. Materialism entirely rejected the humanist
emphasis on reason and, if anything, stressed the similarities and
the continuities between humans and animals. Reason, they thought,
was just one of many species-specific features that appear as a
result of material causes described, in this case, by the theory of
natural selection. From a materialist standpoint, temporary or
permanent incapacity to fully use reason does not cut off persons or
groups from the rest of humanity: it is merely a “problem” for
science and social engineering to manage or resolve. Together, these two
traditions create a powerful sense of moral responsibility for
inclusion and care. Unfortunately, they provide little moral oxygen
for persons acting on those moral demands. Idealism demands that we
act from a moral resolve to do what we know is right. Materialism,
consistent with the belief that behaviour is conditioned by material
causes, suggests that individual responsibility is irrelevant and
that society only needs to be engineered for the desired behaviour
patterns to occur, thus further contributing to the contemporary
loss of authentic spiritual sources of inspiration. This modern vision is a
tale of two solitudes. On one side, there is the material world,
governed by the blind and mechanical laws of matter, the stuff of
science. On the other, the human realm, governed by personal
responsibility, ideals and moral demands. The two were initially
held together by the promise of science and technical progress to
serve humanist ideals and to create a better world by the
elimination of poverty, suffering and death. And, indeed, immense
progress has been made in that direction. But suffering and death
are still with us, inseparable from the human condition. And modern
thought has failed to connect with a source of inspiration to deal
with them on a daily basis. Instead it attempts to provide for
motivation with formal obligations, set out in charters of rights
that call for institutional solutions in terms of government
services, programs and incentives. Material support and resources,
as well as programs and services are of course important; but they
are not sufficient. People and communities are not machines that
react automatically to manipulation of their environment: they need
to be moved, to be touched, to be inspired. |
