What an eventful time this last month or two is proving to be...
Remember this unsightly episode that some of us feared to be a harbinger of a new era: one where the standards of public morality - which to me means humanity as an attitude of consideration towards other people's boundaries and dignity - would be in direct correlation with the increasing lack of adequate physical sustenance?
What worried me - and many others, no doubt - is that just yelling obscenities on air would hardly be the upper limit of the new "freedom of expression" that is upon us.
And it wasn't.
Less than a month later, the world was confronted by this ghastly image:
The ghastly image of itself feasting its void eyes on the intolerable pain of somebody else's void.
Never one to lag behind, British TV has summoned up the "courage" to do the same... sort of:
This is not an individual's internet blog, mind you: this is TV - "reality TV" driven to its extreme.
And lest there is a misunderstanding: we are not talking about euthanasia here.
They are: the channel that aired it, and many of the other media outlets.
And that's precisely what makes me so angry.
This is not about euthanasia.
If my opinion even matters here, I can tell you that, while I don't necessarily share the views of those who support euthanasia (I happen to believe there is always a possibility to get better, even without medical help), I am not opposed to suicide itself.
And while I think the categoric view "my life is MINE" is somewhat simplistic in view of the meta-physical reality of life, at least I can understand it.
What bothers me - very much so! - in this case is that it's being presented as a "case for euthanasia".
It has very little to do with the moral, ethical and other implications of the ACT itself: it's about purposefully recording and airing the last moments of a living being, thereby removing one of the last "taboos".
And there is a good reason why such things have been a taboo until now: if you open the floodgates, soon ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, including the basest human behaviour, will find its way into the media - and from there, it'll rule the world.
People have always loved gladiator games: the bloodier, the better.
It's just that now they are called "Reality TV".
Are you saying: "But he wanted to do it! It was his decision! He consented to it!"
Indeed, he may even wanted to "help" somebody...
There are many things that people would like to do but they don't - or didn't, until very recently - because they fear the social (or even legal) consequences of their act.
Does that make them "repressed"?
Not really. The stifling of an urge or two for the benefit of respecting other people's rights doesn't really curtail your personal freedom and integrity.
More importantly, if we have to choose - and living in an ever imperfect human society, yes, we HAVE to choose - it's far more acceptable, far better (for all, in the long run) to put up with certain "taboos", even a certain level of "censorship" than to let all hell loose.
Which is exactly what would happen once the barriers of social conventions fell.
Which is exactly where we are headed now - and fast.
Never did the old adage "the public has the right to know" sound so shallow.
I would say: "the public" deserves to be confronted with the horror of its own image in the mirror.
But if we accept this apparent "freedom", we must give up - if we have a shred of moral integrity and honesty left, we must give up - the idea that we, each and every individual, are free to live our lives as we choose, according to the standards we choose, for us and for our children.
This apparent "freedom" is anything but.
The "anything goes" attitude is a simulacrum of freedom: a dangerous, lethal beast that man has never been able to fight, precisely because it has the appearance of freedom.
It is the tyranny of ugliness, of horror, of the basest human instincts presented as if they were the ONLY valid and honest human instincts and aspirations.
It is the advent of the age of terror against anyone who still aspires to live in harmony, in beauty, in a gentle and kind world, where ugliness and violence is a rare and unwelcome intrusion.
(No, my dear naysayers: choosing to live a life free of ugliness and misery does not equal ignorance.
Believing that life has to equal ugliness and violence and misery does.)
Mark my words, my friend: unless a miracle happens, you might soon be harrassed and derided for aspiring to a life of beauty, health and freedom.
You shall not be free to live your life according to your vision of life - unless it's a vision of unbridled baseness.
(I can even predict the word that'll be used against you: you'll be called a "reactionary".)
Think about it.
Think about what freedom really is.
Because if you don't, others will think it for you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
TELL ME!