There are 4 Foundational principles of knowledge;
- Law of non-Contradiction
- Law of Causality (Cause and effect)
- Basic or limited reliability of sense perception
- Analogical use of Language
One of those laws, the law of causality or cause and effect, is the one that most directly speaks to “actions and consequences”.
Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.
Simply put, every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect. When we say or do something, that action, whether verbal or physical, will result in some kind of consequence. This is unavoidable.
Let’s take this piece that I am in the process of writing. We could go back to the creation of the universe and trace everything that happened to everyone to see how I ended up, this morning, writing this piece on “Actions & Consequences and Society”. But that might make the piece a bit longer than I want. So, I will simply start with today.
When I woke up this morning, after a few every day morning routines, I sat down at my computer and saw an article about, what has been labeled, “Anti-vaxxers” and the potential horror they were about to cause. There’s that word, cause. That, along with many other thoughts, a few other articles, checking emails, checking Facebook, all brought me to this endeavor. All those things make up the cause. The action is the writing of the piece. The consequences remain to be seen.
One of the things we are seeing more and more, when dealing with different societal issues, is an “either/or”, “black/white”, “take it or leave it” mentality. Considering the fact that we are a diverse society, it seems at best counter-productive and at worse, disingenuous that we look at things this way.
There have always been pressures in society to conform. Even so-called non-conformists seek to get the conformists to conform to their non-conformity. Which means there is no such thing as a non-conformist. We all conform to something. But I digress.
Let’s go back to the subject of the Anti-vaxxers. In a country as diverse as ours, it would seem to me that considering this subject, as with all subjects, we should first see if there is a way for these specific folks, who have as much “right” to their opinion (and act accordingly) as does the other side of the issue, to be able to hold to their convictions/opinion/conscience without sentencing them to the death penalty (exaggeration with a purpose here).
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Anti-vaxxer’s position, is a valid position. From what I have read, and people I have talked to, on both sides of the issue (not yet revealing my own position), it appears that these who hold to this conviction have given this some serious thought and research and are convinced of their positions. Yet they appear to be in the minority. What to do? What to do?
There really is a simple solution to this conundrum. This takes us back to the title of this piece. Actions and Consequences.
As much as we would all like to have everyone live their lives according to our particular “rules”, that ain’t gonna happen. Ever. In any situation. In any country. On any planet. If that’s true, how should we proceed?
Is there a way that the “Anti-vaxxers” can hold to their conviction, without being criminalized, which it appears may be the direction society is attempting to go? I would suggest there is. Of course, in order for this solution to work, society would have to give up their present position of “either/or”, “black/white”, “take it or leave it”.
Actions have consequences. If we are going to be a “free” society and live in relative peace, we can’t have everything (specifically) that we want, regardless of our actions. Let’s consider another area where society has said “either/or”. Smoking.
A decade or so ago, our country began in earnest to eliminate smoking from all public venues. Hotels, motels, restaurants, businesses, offices, etc. It has been quite successful. But was it really fair or even legal for the government to make the laws they did to accomplish this? How could this have been handled differently?
There are two fronts, as I see it. First of all, tobacco is a legal product. Second would be dealing with the private property/enterprise aspect of this.
How is it that a government can declare a limitation on the use of a legal product? Other than government buildings and the consideration of age, I would suggest it could be handled in a similar manner that I would recommend for the Anti-vaxxer situation, which we will get to, I promise.
If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, why not?
The argument I have heard is that it is offensive to people, possibly the majority of people, as well as a health issue. These are two distinct reasons and cannot be handles in the same way. If health were the real reason for the restriction, why is smoking legal at all? That discussion is for another time. I will stick with the offensive nature of smoking for the sake of brevity.
The particular people that find smoking offensive in some way, are not able to comfortably go to this restaurant (that allows smoking) because of the smoking. They should be able to go to any restaurant they choose (society says). They have a right to go to any restaurant they choose. It is wrong to discriminate against these folks who are sensitive to cigarette smoke. So, the solution is to not allow smoking. Or is it? I would suggest that this “solution” is simply giving a made up or perceived “right” to a person, while infringing on or taking away an actual “right” from another.
First of all, there is no discrimination here. Would it be discrimination if a person chooses to not go to a restaurant because they don’t like the particular kind of music they play there? Or the décor? Or even the type of food? This is a privately owned business, offering a product to the public. What that product is and how it’s offered is up to the owner of the establishment. There is no discrimination.
Then there are the “rights” of the business owner. Does he not have the right to set the atmosphere of his own establishment? In doing so, he takes the responsibility for the consequences of his decision. Clearly, if he allows smoking, he will lose a certain number of his clientele. Doesn’t this happen everyday in business for all sorts of reasons?
I don’t go to this store because I don’t like the product line, the atmosphere, the way the store is laid out, the color of the building, and on and on. Not every business appeals to every potential customer. Fact of life.
So, what does this have to do with cause and effect, actions and consequences, Anti-vaxxers?
Simply this. Society has lost the ability or willingness to allow for diversity of thought/conviction. Rather, they have taken it upon themselves to force compliance. There is a better way. And it won’t make either side happy. That usually means it a good solution. 🙂
If society determines that, in order to function in certain areas of that society, one must have been vaccinated, then, so be it. However, it is not necessary to criminalize those who choose not to be vaccinated.
That said, there are still consequences for the Anti-vaxxer. They may not be involved with certain activities in a society with people who make vaccination to be a requirement for participation.
Like the restaurant that allows smoking, one still has a choice to be a customer or not without forcing a business owner to do with his business what he chooses.
To be continued…