|
FAMILY…… Whether it is for the better, or for
worse or just plain indifferent we are all members of one of the rather
exclusive of clubs; the family. So far so good. As for the kind of
relationship we have with our family or the state of affairs of our family we
need not concern ourselves here. We cannot be too far wrong by looking at
the family from the point of view of relationships between individuals and
the collective. In other words we can look at the family from the
metaphysical and ethical point of view. We know that there is a metaphysical relationship
because we know that there is a causal relationship between the members of
the family. We also know that at least at the biological level mothers are
practically exposed to a zero sum strategy. Which in turn introduces
the ethical factor. Let me explain. Irrespective of medical technology,
childbearing and childbirth always involve an element of danger; things can
go tragically wrong. And sometimes they do. This is where the zero sum
strategy becomes relevant. There is always the chance of a woman losing her
life at childbirth since a zero sum strategy does not allow for half measures.
And although the male is not in this unenviable position, the emotional
stress must surely count for something. Hence the ethical issue, why risk so
much when the outcome is far from guaranteed? This brings us to the main philosophical
issue about the family: Altruism. 'What's in it for me?' type
of questions do not arise when two people start a family. Yes, some
parents abandon their families or children, but that's not to say that all
families are like the. At face value the opposite is true. Yes, accidents do
happen, but not every child is an accident. Yes, there is always the social
and religious pressure, but that does not minimize the risk nor increase the
returns. And then there is that little matter of the genes banging at the
door of reproduction. Of course, those genes are quite persistent, but as
rational beings we know that it is that wicked hand of determinism that is
doing the banging. So why does altruism persist? Altruism, don’t forget, goes against the
grain of utilitarianism. What's the point of doing something if there is no
pay off for me? What's the point of risking one's life or giving up one's earnings
just to bring children up? You can see where the argument is heading. Before having children nature plays the
utilitarian game. The maximum pleasure or the maximum return sort of strategy:
what's best for me? Then post childbirth nature switches over to an
altruistic game: what's good for the group as opposed to what's good for the
individual. It can always be argued that if the group is doing well then I
will benefit from that. And if I maximize my returns then the group will
benefit from that. Let's put it this way, which group and which individual stand
to benefit more: the person who starts a family with a drunken down and out
or the person who starts a family with a chief executive officer of a multi
national company? I think the answer is obvious and pigs are not going to fly
tomorrow. How solid the family is or how happy the
family is must surely have some consequences. But am I about to fall into the is/ought trap here? What if it was the case that the
individuals who start the family are happy, then the
collective family will be happy? And if the family is happy, then the
collective of families ought to be happy. And isn't the collective of
families what we also call a society? And if all societies are happy,
wouldn't the whole world be happy? And isn't a society the twin sibling of
politics? Now there is a twist! Let's stop for a reality audit here. So,
if all ma's and all pa's are happy then by a stretch
of the imagination we can end up with the whole world being happy. Is the
world happy? Is society happy? Is the family happy? Are ma and pa happy? And
how did it all start anyway? Could it have started as the song* says:
It started with a kiss. Or ought it have started
with something more substantial as the aria** says: ……d'amore
e di speranza! Take care * Paul Maurice Kelly, It Started With A Kiss ** Georges Bizet, Nessun Dorma |