Monday, September 15, 2008

Like Physics

I'm typing up an excerpt from some things I wrote in my paper journal last Monday, edited somewhat for drama minimizing and for clarity and brevity--I hope.

It's like a Physics equation. Things balance out on both sides of the equation. The weight is equal to the normal force; obviously an object exerts a force on the table, but also the table exerts a force of equal magnitude on the object sitting on top of it.
So, what is meaningful and positive for one person is meaningful and positive for both people involved. One person feels set free, like a curse has been lifted, free to trust and not fear people anymore, but for the other person, too, it is meaningful and positive to be given that trust. That trust is power and it is privilege, the privilege of feeling special, being made special, like a hero.

On second thought, it's possible that this trust and power could feel like a burden--a freedom for Person A is a burden for Person B--and that is in keeping with my whole "Physics equation" idea.

Maybe "responsibility" is just as accurate--but nicer--a word than "burden."

Things don't disappear--they change state--like the law of conservation of matter--and forces must be balanced.

But I always say that feelings don't follow scientific law. Maybe they do, a little bit. Maybe scientific law can help to understand human emotion.

Like poetry.

Science itself, nature and the physical world, don't always follow these rules, either. The square root of negative one appears in nature.

Unless we are using the wrong equations.

There's a place in everything where ends don't meet, rules don't apply, things don't add up or balance.

Like morality.

Recently a conversation arose on the morality of domestication of animals, based on my grandfather's proclamation, "Animals is for human to eat." It was likened to a breeding program for humans to be used for medical experiments. If they're bred for that purpose, then is it wrong to treat them that way? Similarly, is it wrong to raise and kill animals for food if they were only brought to life with that intent, anyway? Are these two situations the same? (At the time, I avoided the question.)

Now I think, YES! They are similar situations! Except for minor details--animals domesticated for meat theoretically aren't being tortured. But I guess the practices of factory farms ARE like torture.

The world is ugly. Maybe that's why I forgive people so easily. Because there is already too much ugliness and anger in the world.

I didn't write this on the eighth, because I would have to go on for pages and use many words to finish my thoughts on this, but I feel that this--domestication of animals for meat--is one of those places where morality, where things don't meet or add up completely. Is it more ethical to have food with a face--things you killed yourself; is that more honest? Is it more ethical to eat no meat? Are lions and wolves and things that are naturally carnivores--are they immoral? Something's getting hurt, but something has to get hurt for anything to survive. (Even plants; they're photosynthetic, but so many are allelopathic...)

And that's all I want to write on the subject for now.

No comments: