Moral High Ground

Perhaps my essential distrust of my own sneaky nature is responsible for my grave fear of crossing a moral line which I will regret.  Even more frightening is not noticing that I have crossed a line.  My experience is that my mind is devious enough to only cross “tiny lines,” one at a time,  until I have eventually crossed what I used to consider or proclaim a huge line.    Daily, I am reminded that it is important for me to  be open to  learning instead of staying in my nice, safe, little boxes which contain what I have decided is absolute truth. On the  other hand, I am acutely aware of the lessons which health care professional throughout the ages, including during World War II,  have taught me about good/moral men and women becoming, step-by-step, an integral part of  something as horrendous as the Nazi era genocide.     I recall the first time I read the book by the author and psychiatrist, Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors.   In this book, Dr. Lifton examines and analyzes the role of the health care professionals,  including physicians, in the Nazi genocide of Jews and  others (depending how one counts the insignia there were 24 to 32 classification of camp inmates in the concentration camp of whom Jews were the largest number). 

One of the questions which interested Dr. Lifton as a medical doctor who has sworn to the Hippocratic Oath,was how licensed medical doctors who had sworn to the oath justified signing individual death certificates in the concentration camps after individuals were gassed.  It is easy  of course, to just think of them as bad people just as it is easy to think of all the other health care professionals who were a part of this  Nazi system as bad people.    In his opinion and in mine that is too simplistic.   Without going into detail about Dr. Lifton’s analysis of the behavior of health care professional under the Nazi regime, it interesting to note that they justified their participation in the killing of  various people which included  groups  as diverse as homosexuals, Jews, the mentally retarded, habitual criminals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Vagrants  by thinking of the state (Country) of Germany as the patient. If the state is the patient then killing off particular people is no different than having to amputate the limb of a person to save their life.   

What  interest me about this reasoning is the fact that these very good men and women had a need to be seen as having integrity and not forsaking their commitment to healing.   All health care professionals commit to healing and not destroying life.  Yet, too often throughout history we allow we health care professionals/we healers  to end up causing much pain and suffering  and then finding  a way to justify this behavior. I am not talking about the very human moments when we may be tired and become impatient  and say something unkind or unkindly.   Normally, we apologize for this behavior and try to insure that we take better care of ourselves so that we do not repeat that behavior.  No, I am talking about  our role in deliberate, systematic hurting of other human beings.  I was thinking of these issues this morning while reading the Tampa Tribune of December 13th.    First I read an article by Stephen Braum which states “ From the early stages of the CIA’s coercive interrogations of terror detainees, the agency’s health professionals monitored and advised on abusive tactics.   Front-line medics and psychologists monitored and advised on abusive tactics as they sometimes complained about the ethical dilemmas gnawing at them, according to this week’s Senate intelligence committee report.”

Then on the editorial page, there was an editorial by a Mr. Gary Weil of Tampa. In talking about the release of the CIA Interrogation report he says, “All that will be achieved by this blatantly political grandstanding is the weakening of this nation as well as yet another clear message to radical Islamist terrorists that we are not serious in our attempt to thwart them.  Political correctness and the ever-dangerous “moral high ground” may well be our undoing.” 

As a parent, a teacher, and a health care professional,  I cannot imagine saying to a young person or even a college student that  taking the moral high ground may be our undoing.  I certainly could imagine suggesting that we always want to be  careful about  becoming self-righteous  and forgetting to first “remove the mote from our own eye.”  I am not convinced that the end justified the means. If that is the case, then our only argument can be whether the end is a worthwhile  or moral goal. 

Certainly health care professionals in Nazi Germany convinced themselves that the end justified the means.    It is no secret that many leaders of the Christian faith for many years justified racism or the treatment of  what we now call African Americans as objects, tools or possessions.  We, in this country, we often convince ourselves that it is only or mostly the bad people who commit crimes and go to prison whereas we good people do not commit crimes and go to prison.  Moving a company to another country so we can use cheap labor is not a crime (more recently that is being called into question at times).  Paying CEOs and other top executives huge salaries while we pay minimum wage  or  at least non-living wages to many of one’s employee is a moral act.  

The truth seems to be that we humans need to first admit that very good people can be very cruel (that is all of us) and the so called very cruel people can be  very good people.  Thinking in terms of us and them might be something we want to rethink.  Also, if we humans convinces ourselves that a goal is so important that we can set aside our most basic moral values then I think that we might  begin to ask if we really want a world in which all people in all places behave  according to this principle.  Is this really what we want to teach our children? Is this the same as “do until others before they do unto you?”

As we approach the holiday season as Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, or non-religious  people who want to think of ourselves as moral perhaps we would do well to ask some of the same questions which Dr. Lifton is asking.  Perhaps we want to ask if any goal is worth giving up all our moral principles.

A Common Thread

Today, a friend of mine just sent me the following in response to a quote I had emailed her from Scott Atran’s book, Talking to the Enemy  Faith, Brotherhood, and the (un)Making of Terrorists: 

“Guess I just don't have faith to believe that when children are trained from birth to hate especially backed up with their religion that they can be "unmade". I don't know what the answer is. I rely on prayer and giving over to a merciful God to do what I cannot wrap my mind around.”

What if she is right!  What if there is no possibility of  we humans changing the thinking of those who have been taught to hate from birth; a hate which is “justified” or backed up by their religion.  If they cannot be changed, is the only answer to  respond to violence or threats of violence with more violence?  This is seemingly the most common response on an individual and on a community/national/tribal level.  Yet, most would agree that long term violence does not seem to be working.   It could be argued by some that in times past responding to violence with violence did bring about periods of peace.   When the group or the tribe was confined to a limited geographical area and transportation was less available and slower, possibly violently defeating an “enemy” was more successful for a longer period of time although even that assertion can be debated.

As a person trained in Clinical Psychology  who has worked in prisons, community mental health centers, and state hospitals there certainly does seem to be people whose thinking seems immune to any approach we now use when we invite people to change thinking.  Sadly, the research on this is somewhat limited since our approach is often punishment.  On the other hand,  I have witnessed seeming  miracles  in changes of thinking.  If one wants to experience dramatic changes in thinking one only has to attend an open speaker meeting of one of the 12-step programs, especially NA or AA, to hear of folks who,  before and during active addiction , have been unable to consider the  rights  of others. They often talk about violent behavior, including killing, without feeling any remorse.  Sometimes, we could explain this thinking  as a direct effect of the drugs they were using. Sometimes it was attributed to a way of thinking developed  long before active drug use.

I have also read about and talked with people who have mindfully/intentionally  met with those who had formerly been labeled as enemies. They claim  that both sided are able  to come to see that they shared common hopes and dreams.

Anyone who has been in a combat situation or spent time with those who have been in combat know that combatants are taught to dehumanize the person(s) they  are going to fight as the enemy.   In training, especially for those who will be directly dealing with “the enemy,”  men and women are taught to think of those people as “japs,”  “gooks,”  “insurgents,”  or any label which does not stimulate thoughts of someone who is like them.     The combatant will also tell you that one of the toughest times is finding a family photo on the body of someone one has just killed.  If someone is a  person with a partner and children, it is more difficult to think of them as human.

In previous blogs, I have talked about going to a men’s retreat with “strangers” and not being allowed to share status, education, titles, sexual orientation, nationality or other common labels as a way of getting to know each other.   What we found was that we had a lot in common.   Groups of “enemies” such as Israeli and Palestine people who have met  together with the stated objective of looking  for qualities they share, found that they had  very similar hopes, dreams, feelings and goals.

What authors/social scientists such as Scott Atran are inviting the reader to do is to get to know the hopes, dreams, and background of those we label as terrorists.  He is also suggesting that we reacquaint ourselves with the history of our relationship and our role in creating the current conditions.  Although it may be convenient and simpler to assume that current behavior for all of us comes out of a vacuum, I do not believe that this way of thinking  is  helpful or accurate. 

It is convenient  and more comfortable to think of those we label as Terrorists or Insurgents  as very different from us, just as it is convenient and more comfortable for those who label us as the infidels as very different. The truth is that we are not very different.  Although I have often been chided and criticized as naive , inaccurate, simplistic, and even non-thinking,  I fail to see a distinction between those of us who are willing to die for democracy/our way of life, to protect future generations of those in the United States and those who are willing to become martyrs  to fulfill their holy mission.  Christian history is filled with examples of the justification of killing and dying for the good of the whole or to do God’s will.   One might argue that the suicide bombers are less respectful of the life of civilians. Really.  We are forever rationalizing collateral damage although allegedly we do not target civilian populations.  If, on the other hand, we know or suspect that a terrorist leader is in some building along with others, we do not seem to hesitate to target the building.    My point is not to justify the behavior of the suicide bomber or our targeted  killings.  My point is that there may not be the chasm between the two behaviors which we would like believe there is.  If the basic feelings, desires, hopes and dreams of “the other” is more similar than dissimilar to ours then we have a starting point to explore our brotherhood/sisterhood.  My Buddhist teacher reminds me that when I allow myself to feel joy, hope, pain, sadness, grief, passion or peace I am feeling what all other humans feel.  If I am thinking of wanting a good life for myself and my family, I am thinking of what every person wants. The specifics of what we want or think our family needs may be different but the goal is the same.  If I am  wanting to live a meaningful life, then I am thinking the same things which the suicide bomber is thinking.  If I believe that one of the most significant gifts I can give or leave is to give my life so that others may have a better life, then I am thinking the same as the Terrorist.  We may passionately disagree about methods or means of achieving that goal, but we share the goal.

If I am at all  accurate in these assumptions, then  one would think that it is theoretically possible for we humans to come together to create a more loving and just world.  Yet, there are those who maintain such thinking as I am proposing is unrealistic at best and unpatriotic as worse.  Just this morning of Wednesday, December 10, 2014, I read in the Tampa Tribune, page 15 an editorial by James Waurishuk, a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel who served for nearly 30 years as a senior intelligence and political –military affairs officer.  He writes of Hilary Clinton:

         Her illogical position on “smart power” and the need to respect and empathize with our enemy is naïve, Utopian and irrational, at best.  In all actuality, such thinking is no more than a strategy of capitulation and disarmament, which, by the way, has been the goal of the far left and orchestrated through all its tentacles of influence for decades.

Now the challenge as I read this, if I believe what I wrote, is to have respect for and empathy towards Colonel Waurishuk; to actively listen to him with an open mind.   I have to assume, not knowing this man, that he wants a peaceful world for he and his family as much as I do.  We have that in common which can be a starting point to a conversation.  Now, one might  say that, given the  tone of his editorial,  there is no way that man is going to be able to agree to engage in a dialogue. That may be true, but I have the power to refuse to treat him with anything other than love and respect; to not accept an invitation to exchange “sound bites” or throw accusations back and forth.  I am going to assume that he is a very good man whose point of view is arrived at through study, experience and a loving heart.  I have nothing to lose by thinking that although some might say that  no matter what I say or how much I offer to embrace him he is not going  to allow me to engage him in a dialogue. That may be true although the basic laws of physics inform me of a different truth.   One of the basic laws of physics, as I understand it, is that all systems must balance. If a person is in an angry, judgmental space and I am in a loving space then the system of he and I is in a state of unbalance.  It can be balanced by my jointing his angry, judgmental space, by him joining my loving space or by the two of us each compromising and agreeing to a different, common space.   In my experience if I refuse to respond to verbal or physical violence with violence and instead respond with love, either the person will join me in a more loving space or one of us will leave.  The system cannot tolerate the dissonance of imbalance for any length of time.

Now, it is possible that the person’s mind is so unable to think logically because of acute mental illness, the effect of some drug or other condition that they will get more violent no matter what I do.  Certainly that is possible, but I am going to maintain that it is (1) not very likely or (2) is worth the risk. As  Bigger Thomas in Richard Wright’s novel Native Son tells us when he is being threatened by the police person, You cannot do anything to me except kill me and that aint’t nothing. (not exact quote).  As with the Christian who is willing to join the military service knowing that she/she may die or as it is with the suicide bomber,  Bigger knows that no matter what, life is very short and all we really own is the integrity with which we live our few minutes of life.  Thus,  one can assert the seeming contraction that life is sacred and dying is nothing. Both can be simultaneously true. All major religions and spiritual belief systems have maintained that all life has a sacred person.  A fish might be killed for food but it is to be killed with reverence and gratitude. This is very different than doing so with hate and the goal of punishment  Humans  do not generally kill each other because  we love them as a sacred part of creation.  The exception might be those who believe that assisted suicide at the end stage of life is moral.

For that person who because of mental illness or some other condition is unable to think or act logically, we can still respond with love.  Locking someone up in a protective space out of love is going to look and feel much different than locking them up to punish them. 

The challenge is to look beyond those labels and “neat little boxes” which too often determine our thinking and behavior toward “the other” and instead look for  our commonality .  This might lead us to be more open and honest with some of our unkind thoughts, desires, or past actions; to face that part of us which is not attractive or what we would like to know about ourselves; to face the fact that even in some unattractive ways we have some qualities or thoughts  in common with the person we have labeled as the enemy or the bad person or …

It will also lead us to allow for the possibility that both of us have some very admirable thoughts or feelings.    It is not uncommon for the stereotypical mafia person to be very loving and kind to a member of his family or to an animal.   Tony in the show “The Sopranos” was a wonderful example of the seeming inconsistencies we humans are capable of.  He was, at times, very cruel and, at other times, extremely loving and kind. Which one was Tony?  Both were equally him as is the case with all of we humans who ae not disabled because of an illness or condition affecting our brain.

It is my personal commitment to continue to use my personal daily spiritual time to challenge myself to find that common thread within myself which links me to all other humans.

As young children, our world is very small  and we have a limited concept of the relationship between ourselves as individuals and other people, places and things as separate from us.   When something happens – positive or negative – we think that we caused it.  Mommy or daddy is happy or sad;  we are responsible.   Now, sometimes, even as a small child, we can have a profound effect on the adults around us.  Often when they are in a sad or negative mood, our behavior can quickly bring a smile to their faces.  On the other hand, we also have a very limited conceptual understanding of an “I” which is separate from “them” or “the other.”

If we are very lucky, by the age of five or six,  we begin to get some sense of the fact that others are separate from us and, thus, we do not cause/create their mood or their reaction.  They can be in a positive or negative mood irrespective of what we do or do not do.
  
I have noticed, however, that despite my movement towards maturity there is still a part of me which is quick to assume blame or credit for the mood or behavior of another person.  In fact,  just this morning at the gym a man who is normally very friendly seemed distant.  My first  thought was, “What did I do to cause him to  be emotionally distant?”  I do not know this man other than saying hello to him at the gym and sharing some basic information.  Why would I assume that I could be responsible for his seemingly distant mood?  My rational mind told me that he could be tired, not feeling well, be thinking about issues at work, trying to decide on the perfect holiday gift for his wife or his children,  or just not  seeming to be present for a myriad of reasons.  It is entirely possible that he was just wanting personal/private space and felt no obligation to enhance my experience of the morning by taking time to make me feel important enough to speak to.   Yet, a part of my mind told me I had, once again, done something to cause this man to be distant.

I did not immediately consider the possibility that I was the one who was feeling distant and was projecting that stance onto this man.  I am certainly aware that when I am a bit off center I can feel very distant from myself and others.   At times, when I try to explain this feeling of being distant I blame other people, places and things, rather than just noticing that I am slightly off balance for any of a number of possible reasons. 

Most spiritual teachers and psychologists whom I know seem to agree that we humans are apparently the only beings in this part of the universe which have a core belief that it is not enough to be who we are; that we need to somehow add to ourselves to be worthwhile.  The belief seems to be that we can add to ourselves by gaining more education, having more money, building a larger house, being more spiritual than most people, having a bigger house, a more expensive car, or more abundant body parts.  Thus, we are always comparing ourselves with others and, in some way,  attempting to be enough to be worth love and respect.   It is not surprising, in this context, to assume that the behavior of others is because of our action or inaction.  Certainly, another person might react to us; might give us the power to affect their behavior, but that is their issue and not ours. I am not responsible for how others react to something I do or do not do.  I do have a responsibility to treat others with love and respect which will frequently leave the other person feeling better.  I cannot, however, cause them to behave in a certain manner.  Short of physically harming them, most people do not behave in a certain way because of what I do or do not know. It is very arrogant of me to think that others have nothing  better to do that to be concerned about my behavior and well-being.  Imagine, everyone at the gym at 5:30 AM planning for my arrival and what they can do to enhance my day! Really!

It is fascinating to me that I can have a fragile sense of self-worth and still think that I am so important that all others I see in a  particular day are thinking of how they can affect me in a positive or negative manner!  This is not logical at all. 

I do want to bring loving energy into every space I enter.   I do not want to bring negative energy and leave it to affect others.  Whether or not others choose to or  are able to pick up on this energy is not something I can control or  need to try to control.   Others are in their own world living their life the best they can. Most are not going to be aware of my presence.   It is my responsibility to practice focusing on  taking care of myself and bringing positive energy to any space I occupy. If someone is having a difficult day,  I do not want to personalize it.  I want to be present if they want/need to share what is going on with them. 

There will be times when it is clear  that I have said or done something which another person(s) experiences as offensive,  an insult, or as putting them down. I would like to practice being accountable for that behavior and, when appropriate, apologize/make amends to that person. At the same time, my goal is to not beat myself up, but rather, to just notice my behavior and take appropriate action. 

Most of all,  I want to continue to make peace with my own humanness; to  be able to lovingly laugh at/with myself when I  begin to think of myself as the center of the universe.