January 22, 2001

 

ANIMAL RITES

  Mike's Comment
of the Week
     
  Cool Site of the Week
     
  Comment Archives
     
  Industry Links
     
     
     
     
     
 
SEARCH
  Send us e-mail
    Mail Us
 

If Howard Stern, Trash TV, and the latest wave of celebrity bastard children make you wonder whatever happened to morality, the New York Times may have found the answer.

In an article which could pass as a textbook example of pure sophistry, Verlyn Klinkenborg holds that "The more we know about the rest of life, it turns out, the more we know about ourselves and the less we resemble the iconic, self-exalting ideal of biblical or Cartesian man."

Translation: There is little or no difference between man and animals.

The basis for this conclusion is the rather prosaic observation, by some anthropologists, that other species create music, which, wonder of wonders, conforms to certain structures used in human music. And, the only reason that human music is more advanced is that we have better tools. Moreover, our love of music is no less "instinctual" than an animal's. Take that, Ludwig!

Let's examine the "reasoning" here.

Assuming, for a moment, that the music argument is valid, how does comparable activity in one of thousands of possible endeavors allow such a sweeping conclusion as to the overall merits of distinct species?

If astronomical differences in level of accomplishment are to be explained away by humans having better tools, as if these tools just grew on trees, then we ARE no different from the very lowest animals. Telecommunications are no better than pheromones or the baying of hounds. Literature and the arts are no better than the random debris from a rabbit warren. And the Sistine Chapel is no better than a beaver dam, or an anthill.

But the tools DON'T grow on trees, and were developed by the mind of man, over millennia of civilization--to say nothing of divine inspiration. If we define music as a certain arrangement of sounds pleasing to the ear, how surprising is it that music from any source would have some format?

So fear not. You are more valuable than an animal. Why, though, is the position even advanced?

The answer is quite simple, and quite sad.

Many years ago, when secular humanism (the politically correct term for atheism) was advanced, its proponents were very sure that noble man, freed from the repressive bonds of religion, would produce a perfect society. Instead, we got drug abuse, illegitimacy, rampant crime, and polarization.

At first, the solution to these unexpected plagues was the imposition of gigantic government programs. Even if the problems were not solved, the illusion of motion for action worked for quite a while, aided and abetted by the information mandarin class. Besides, controlling all that tax revenue created tremendous power.

However, with the advent of alternative media, popular resistance to high taxes, and significant demographic changes, even the most ardent liberal socialist acknowledges that the problems are not being solved as he would have hoped. What to do?

Simple logic would suggest that a turn back to conventional morality might be a good start, but that would be admitting that the great atheism experiment was a failure.

Here's the plan: Remove the stigma from what immoral behavior you can, and for everything else, excuse it by noting that we're nothing more than animals, anyway.

How clever. For those at the bottom, you've given them a justification for despair, and for those at the top, someone has to be king of beasts.


 

Last Update:
Copyright ©1996 - 2002 Interscan Corporation. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.