Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I submitted this essay for the American Humanist Essay Contest (age group 13-17). Only requirement was that you had to relate something to humanism in 2500 words or less and i chose the most liberal and overwhelming controversial thing i could think of. Anyways, I need some opinions on whether this is way too boring to warrant consideration for 1st (I dont know how many people did the essay contest but I wont find out til June...which is an awful lot of time). And you can also drop an opinion on what you think of the work in general--especially whether it was too confusing or not. Thanks in advance. Here goes:

"Discussions on the Interruption of Free Will in Iraq"--not the exact title but it was something along those lines...

What is destiny?

We have become slaves to our dreams. Our human ideals bounded by instinct and suppressed by irrational desires that defy the very nature of humanity. Our needs subjugate our intentions and pervert the moral system we regard as reason and logic—all for progress and knowledge. We have extended a search for a means to our lives, for something definite in a world full of so little constancy. But in the end, so many of us achieve even less than we set out for, even less than we rightfully deserve. This is destiny: the irrationality of our lives, an unaccountable factor that controls every possible outcome and choice. It is the rationale that suspends our hopes and defines our odds, so unpredictable that we devote lives studying its form and seconds praying for its guidance. Our lives have become subject to it, inescapable and unchangeable, the reason for our existence.

“[Humanism] asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.” Every choice made has logic behind it. Although we may not be able to see its rationality, there is always a reason it occurred. But choice itself does not account for destiny; in fact, it seems to contradict the existence of destiny. Indeed, our lives are the aggregate sum of all our decisions, with each choice fitting neatly into our collective experience. These choices guide our destiny and are responsible for the meaning in our lives. We create them; we drive our destinies into the path they must go. Yet, there are times in which individual choices do not yield individual consequences. Instead, some other force has made a decision that has an affect upon our lives. This disturbs the delicate balance of our thoughts and may have negative effects on the ability to make choices. Thus, every individual must take their own initiative or else their choices will ultimately lead to someone else’s destiny. This has become one of our greatest moral problems as we send American forces into Iraq, and throughout the “unenlightened” world. Is our destiny, and our vision, ultimately right for those never able to experience it?

Obviously the future is dependant on the past, and although there is no definite argument for or against free will, it is certain that the illusion of choice exists—even if only a slight side effect of the entropy all around us. Essentially, free will is the basis of our Western society, stemming from democratic ideals and the ideology of James Locke and creating a government that allows each of us to take control of our lives. Men have killed for it, died for it, spent their entire lives praying for it, all with some hope that it will last for those who succeed them. But what if it were only an illusion? What if everything was absolute, engraved in some distant place with some distant language, which had even more distant implications? Nothing would matter, but everything would be far more ambiguous. This is in itself a paradox. If there were no choice, then there would be no doubt, no uncertainty about our decisions because the outcomes would stay the same. But we do not know those outcomes: that is what makes free will. Even if everything were fixed, engraved into some distant place, there is still that doubt: a tiny shred of hope that allows for so much argument. And again, it is this hope that drives men to do things others can only imagine; hope that drives the world and liberates those who have none.

But we have tried to become that free will. Our nation has tried to instigate its ideology and democratic foundation through undiplomatic (and undemocratic) means. It has not let the individuals decide their destiny, but taken its own measures to secure its dominance. These are not modern philosophies that “[affirm] the dignity of each human being.” Instead, they corrupt a moral system founded to prevent the use of violence in any nation that does not request it. Despite the brutality of the Hussein regime in Iraq, the Iraqi people are ultimately responsible for their government. Rousseau’s Social Contract dictates: “As long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it.” Rousseau also states that the collective individuals of a society are entitled to their sovereignty, “a right which no one can take from the citizens.” Had the Iraqi people felt “good sense” and “sovereignty” was lacking, they surely would have done something about it—as all individuals within a nation have a right to do, regardless of the type of government. But action was taken before a general opinion could be reached. Elections for Hussein ignored, and an attack was mounted. Our nation undertook an action that it would never have allowed within its own borders, all for the sake of “life and liberty.”

But there is no compassion in force, only hypocrisy. Violence demoralizes both the victim and instigator, not distinguishing between civilians and soldiers. It also forces individuals to do what they do not wish to do: it chooses for them. This disrupts destiny and alters the framework of conscience, creating a disparity between those affected and those unaffected. Because humanism concerns itself with the individual, it is able to differentiate between a collective good and a collective evil. Any violence, regardless of its intentions, will always have negative consequences for a select group of people unfortunate enough to become the victims. These victims have the same right to life as the individuals responsible for violating that right; they are no different in their creation or existence. But each individual is different in the way they seek out happiness. No one set of ideologies fits everyone, which is why there is so much choice. Humanism allows each individual to search for enjoyment in their own way, apart from influences on their existence by external forces. An armed invasion into a nation that showed no signs of descent violates humanist practices. Even with Kant’s view on ethics (one in which intentions guide morality), the overall intentions and reasons behind the invasion are skewed, unable to be clearly discerned.

Ethics also drive humanist ideals, becoming the basic framework for a moral life and an inward sense of satisfaction. However, unethical actions interfere with a logical sequence of events, corrupting free will and creating a void of reason in those individuals who receive that action. In his treatise Utilitarianism, J.S Mill writes: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” The immediate consequences of an action are those that drive its ethical foundation. Ideally, the results should be direct and clear; however, there is always an argument for what the ultimate consequence of any action is. Indeed, if one chooses to measure ethics through a cause and effect sequence, everything becomes the product of everything before it, a beginning unable to be clearly paired with an end. But Mill’s quote contains reason in a moral sense. Every individual must seek the most beneficial outcome for all those involved when rationalizing whether or not to undertake an action. In Iraq, consequences were masked by intentions. Although there was a clear intent to bring stability and democracy into a region that apparently lacked it, there was little thought put into the direct consequences of a hostile coup d’etat. Now there are more negative effects than positive intentions, a society with even less freedom than before the initial invasion occurred. Both soldiers and citizens are being forced into a conflict with no immediate resolution, an unethical and amoral situation in which the benefactor is also the victim.

All of this interferes with the individual’s right to seek happiness and achieve his or her own destiny. When ethics are disregarded in favor of other ideals, the consequences substantiate an inherent violation of individual sovereignty. Modern documents have been written to preserve these rights, and ensure they remain for everyone, regardless of differences in ideology or race. They facilitate humanitarian ideals and provide a rational and ethical basis for common law with the belief that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). These rights also dictate that no absolute righteousness exists, with each individual’s interpretation (within a certain limit) the sole property of his or her own thoughts. No one has the right to take these liberties away, unless the individual specifically requests it. Humanitarian documents also praise tolerance and compassion toward all individuals—a clause taken from humanist ideology. But when these rights are taken away, a blatant violation of ethical principles occurs. A clear message that an individual’s (or a society’s) ideals should be able to supersede those of another is also sent to that society. This necessitates conflict and creates false logic. There is no difference in the way in which we all live our lives, only in the way we choose to express them. Free will follows this innately simple idea, but also causes conflict between two different modes of expression. It becomes the responsibility of conscious members of a society to make certain that everyone’s rights exist without persecution.

The Iraqi War boils down to two main principles: our right to take away their government, and their decision to maintain it. It is certain that there were individuals who wished to see Hussein’s regime toppled in favor of a Western form of government; but their number cannot be accurately determined. In the same sense, the vote taken to maintain Hussein’s government in October of 2002 (deemed fair by the BBC and unfair by several leading media organizations) creates an equal amount of ambiguity surrounding Iraqi opinions on the Hussein government. The only substantial fact remains that no authoritative body has the right to take away happiness from law-abiding individuals. With the recent invasion of United States forces into Iraq for security and not humanitarian reasons, a distinct violation of these rights has taken place. A government has been enacted that makes its decisions based on recommendations from other nations, and not the individual citizens. Rousseau and Locke both declared that if a government does not adequately provide for its citizens, the citizens have a right to revolt. Essentially, it becomes the choice of the masses and not a foreign presence to determine when that government does not fit its people. This is a fundamental right of revolution and general will, something that must be preserved against the desires of other forces.

The invasion has also corrupted humanist principles that must be granted to all people. Currently, over ninety percent of Iraq’s population is dependant on food aid and three million Internally Displaced Persons have no permanent shelter and no effective means of returning to their areas of origin. This was not their choice; their own desires did not drive their destinies. When another force acts upon individual will only confusion and disorder will prevail. Although the Iraqi people do not live by humanist philosophy, their ideals are being corrupted by inhuman actions. Likewise, the soldiers who have taken away their rights are having their own liberties discarded in favor of progress and democratic ideals. A nation should not have the right to decide for its people or another nation’s people, but instead guide their lives and ensure as much safety and stability necessary in order for every individual to pursue happiness. Only in this way will each person’s destiny become their own, and external differences be set aside for the collective good of society.

Destiny is a thing more obscure than life itself, rationally unaccountable but seemingly present. It must be treated with the same dignity as human life; a dignity no individual or society may take away, regardless of their intentions. In a sense, destiny has become our moral foundation, something we cite when we need to explain the inherent uniqueness and unquestionable similarity about each one of us. Humanism has become its cornerstone, preaching egalitarian ideals while maintaining the right of every person to live their lives in their own way.

Thanks for all posts.....i know its really long

By Anothersuitcase (Anothersuitcase) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 12:13 am: Edit

First and foremost:

Essentially, free will is the basis of our Western society, stemming from democratic ideals and the ideology of James Locke and creating a government that allows each of us to take control of our lives.

Quickly correct that to John Locke before anyone else catches it!

It's a dry read, especially the first three paragraphs (admittedly I stopped reading after the third paragraph because it just came off too much like an extended definition--all broad generalizations with little to no specifics. Generalizations are fine for an introductory paragraph, but beyond that it just becomes excessive and tedious.) I noticed you finally got into detail in the fourth paragraph, but by that time I was already tired of reading.

It needs zest, especially in the beginning; it wouldn't hurt to inject a little personality into it. Since I haven't read the entire essay, I can't say much else beyond that.