By Chris Rossini
Every single human being is a one-of-a-kind creation. There are no carbon copies.
The way that each of us look at, and interpret the world, is completely unique to ourselves. When any event occurs, your explanation to yourself about what it means will be influenced by your prior experience, by what you've been taught in the past and accepted as true (even if, in reality, it is false).
Since no human individual is all-knowing or omnipotent, it means we all walk around with some level of ignorance. We all carry falsehoods between our ears, and we're all responsible for replacing them with the truth if we want the best that life has to offer.
We're all uniquely wise, as well as uniquely ignorant.
Our local situations are completely different as well. Imagine if you could walk down your street and could go into each person's home. By the time you get to the last house on the block, the following thought would smack you in the face:
"Boy, we may all be human beings, but we are all certainly different."
Different preferences, different talents, different abilities, different tastes, different desires, different personalities, different body types, different heights, weights, shoe sizes....etc., etc., etc.
Difference is the distinguishing characteristic of all the human beings that comprise humanity.
So how are billions of different people supposed to interact with one another?
Well, since difference is such an obvious part of our nature, there is a concomitant part of our nature that compliments it perfectly --- Liberty.
We are free to think whatever we please, and act according to our thinking. We are not programmed robots. There can be no algorithms for humans.
We each identify a localized discomfort, and then act to remove it. We do this over, and over, and over....all day, every day. We're constantly switching out what we believe to be unsatisfactory with something that we believe would be more satisfactory.
What is unsatisfactory to you may be perfectly OK to another. What seems to be a problem to you, is considered a blessing to another. You run from a fire, another runs towards it.
We are all different, and we are all free.
So how are billions of different and free people supposed to interact with one another?
The only logical answer is that we should first respect (and accept) that we are different and free. Since we are different, it would be foolish to try to impose uniformity. One cannot impose uniformity on that which is naturally different.
The keyword is "impose," which means "to force."
Violent force is the enemy of human nature. It is the weed that tries to overtake the garden. It is the free radical that tries to destroy the cell.
If the imposition of force is the enemy of our nature, it means that we are meant to interact with one another voluntarily. We are to give our consent, or refuse to give our consent. We can say "Yes," or we can say "No."
Is there a time where the use of force can be ethically justified?
Since we are free, it means there will always be the unfortunate few who (out of error) will choose to be violent. If someone is aggressive, then force is justified to put down that aggression.
Force can be ethically justified for defense only. When there is a weed, you rip it out by the roots. You defend the garden.
The key for billions of different and free individuals to interact with one another is "First, do no harm."
Solve problems, create a more satisfactory set of circumstances...but first, do no harm.
If you think you have to harm someone else first in order to solve a problem, you need to think again.
You're in error.
Today we live in a time, where some individuals wield aggressive force, trying to impose "one-size-fits-all" solutions on a population of different and free individuals.
There is no "one-size-fits-all" in this world. Humans are not homogeneous. We are not like a box of identical nails that you can buy in bulk at the hardware store.
We are unique. Our situations are unique.
Our solutions must be uniquely and peacefully arrived at.
Our individual solutions require "First, do no harm."
But for many, it is perfectly acceptable to do harm first, in order to help others.
That's a very big problem.