Telos of Society

A Great Rabbi stands, teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife’s adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death.

The Rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. ‘Is there any man here,’ he says to them, ‘who has not desired another man’s wife, another woman’s husband?’
They murmur and say, ‘We all know the desire, but Rabbi none of us has acted on it.’

The Rabbi says, ‘Then kneel down and give thanks that God has made you strong.’ He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, ‘Tell the Lord Magistrate who saved his mistress, then he’ll know I am his loyal servant.’

So the woman lives because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.

Another Rabbi. Another city. He goes to her and stops the mob as in the other story and says, ‘Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.’

The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. ‘Someday,’ they think, ‘I may be like this woman. And I’ll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her as I wish to be treated.’

As they opened their hands and let their stones fall to the ground, the Rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman’s head and throws it straight down with all his might it crushes her skull and dashes her brain among the cobblestones. ‘Nor am I without sins,’ he says to the people, ‘but if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead — and our city with it.’

So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.

The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis and when they veer too far they die. Only one Rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation.

So of course, we killed him.

(Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead, 228)

What was the point of that story? It highlights the difficulty of sustaining a balance between the liberal left and the conservative right. Both left and right are underpinned by principals of personal freedom and prescriptive righteousness respectively. They are able veer far from the middle, thus radicalising, without compromising on these principles. Hence, they are popular to individuals who adopt similar principles, but are detrimental to the society. This contrasts with moderates who are sandwiched in-between and therefore fight on two fronts. There is little principle to uphold a moderate stance too. This is why the moderate Rabbi was killed in the story. It is easy to subscribe to the ideal of personal liberty or conservatism. It is immensely difficult to subscribe to both.

There is an upcoming trend of partisan politics, simply refer to Brexit or The United States. Brexit has been locked for years in a slow-motion train wreck due to political paralysis. Meanwhile, there is more friction than ever between Democrats and Republicans, polarising the country. It is important to address this because partisan politics conflict with the Telos, or purpose, of Society.

What is the Telos of Society? The Telos of Society is Harmony. It means enduring peace between citizens. Without peace from within, there is no society, for society is nothing but individuals who identity themselves as a collective. Take away anything else, and society might yet endure, but the absence of harmony is the death of the society. Hence, its Telos.

What of Universal morality? It is not society’s role to promote ideals of the good life. The fact that various societies exist, have been existing, since time immemorial, is testimony that the societies have differing interpretations of morality. This is moral relativism, the idea that “What goes in Athens does not go in Sparta” by Socrates. For the both far-left and far-right, this is a bitter pill to swallow. It both champions and opposes ethics such as basic human rights, depending on the country’s historical context. From an idealistic perspective, this is contradictory. However as a pragmatic approach to achieving the Telos of harmony, it is not contradictory because it only prescribes one set of ethics to each country at any given time.

For something to be universal, it must be absolute. Moral absoluteness allows no compromise, no empathy. Otherwise, the principle devours itself. Its tough, rigid structure is inherently brittle.

It is also note-worthy that the definitions of the left and the right differ among countries. Liberal Americans are often more conservative than conservative Europeans, at least in terms of the taxation and welfare of the economy, for example. Healthcare and Education subsidies, even to the extent of free university education in Germany, are plentiful in Europe compared to the land of the free. Hence, not only is moral relativism a reality, the definitions of liberal and conservative are not universal.

What are the implications of moral relativism? The absence of moral absoluteness frees individuals to compromise, as they understand their ethical beliefs are mere product of the environment they were brought up. It cannot be stressed how important this is to bipartisanship politics. It facilitates level-headed dialogue to weigh the pros and cons, and there are always pros and cons to any political decision. Regarding Brexit, it is impossible to remain in the EU bloc, reaping economical benefits of free trade while collectively imposing tariffs on outsiders, without relinquishing control of manpower mobility. There is a price to pay for any benefit. Both sides refuse to recognise this, leading to years of deadlock, though this might finally change as Theresa May has reached out to Jeremy Corbyn.

How to maintain Harmony? On policies, weigh the pros and cons, and be decisive. Analysis on the pros and cons identifies the beneficiaries, who may be compromised in the future at lesser political cost, and victims, who may be compensated to tide over difficulties. The main purpose is to maintain the country’s solidarity, not introduce fragments of special-interest communities which leads to identity politics. Without national solidarity, there is no society.

On law and enforcement, and they are inseparable for there is no law without enforcement and no enforcement without law, enforcement must always be firm. Social vigilantism is no substitute for enforcement because it acts outside the law. This reduces the legitimacy of the law which divides the society. However, while the legitimacy of the law is sacred, its specific rules may be changed over time. Citizens may subjectively discourse, though whatever the decision is, maintain respect for the law to preserve harmony. The law is subject to change, enforcement is not.

Who gets to make the decision? It depends on the historical context of the country. In a democracy, the people. In a republic, the republicans. In a dictatorship, the dictator. In a technocracy, the technocrats. In a monarch, the monarchy.

You, the intellectual reader, who has had the opportunity to be educated may be shocked at this prospect. Democracies are often more popular than authoritarian regimes. Let us consider this juxtaposition: A ship in treacherous tides. It is in everyone’s interest to keep the ship afloat. Who should steer a ship? The captain who has the most power, the navigator who specialises in steering, or the crew who are numerous but have no clue how to steer. It would be pleasing to the majority to collectively decide how to steer, but practically they are untrained for the task, and there is a great chance for the ship to capsize. It would be efficient to let the navigator steer the ship, but the crew cannot comprehend how well the navigator can steer, simply because they are not navigators. Hence, what is stopping them from overthrowing the navigator? Lastly, it would be neither pleasing nor efficient to let the captain steer, but the captain is able to command authority and quell resistance from the crew so he will not be overthrown. (To question his power is no different from questioning the navigator’s ability to steer. The navigator specialises in steering, the captain specialises in ruling. There is chance of failure but no more than the crew’s. The crew does not specialise in ruling, otherwise they would be the captain.)Continuing, if the captain is humble enough to take advice from the navigator, the ship prevails. Now, whether the crew is really uneducated, whether the navigator can really steer or is simply bluffing and no one knows better, whether the captain is wise enough to balance control with efficiency, is all dependent on institutions.

What are institutions? Institutions are the foundation of a society. Examples include: incorruptibility, education, law and enforcement. An institution of education and liberalism may lean a country towards democracy, and such institutions depends on the historical context of the country. Insisting that the crew should steer the ship because of your ideals, dooms the ship to an uncertain future. Your ideals are formed by your environment and institutions which was formed by the historical context of your country. But the historical context of your country differs from the historical context of other countries. Hence, decision is made by those who are most suited to make decisions based on the historical context. Over time, that context might change and power is wrested by underdogs. Such is natural and do not deviate from the Telos of society.

An example of foreign intervention fueled by ideals rather than historical contextual understanding is the United States’ role in the Arab Spring. In 2010, Arabs were increasingly dissatisfied with their economy and inequality. The United States recognised this and intervened political, economically and sometimes even militarily. The extent that intervention played a role in the government’s collapse is debatable, the fact that they intervened is not. The Arab spring concluded with power vacuums that plunged dozens of countries in a decade of chaos. Amidst counter-revolutionary and religious civil wars, the harmony of Arab society collapsed, taking society down with it. This was because the foreign and local desire for democracy persisted despite the absence of democratic institutions.

Referencing the recent United States-led political and humanitarian intervention in Venezuela, they have learnt little from the Arab Spring.

What are the main points?

In light of recent trends towards partisanship, we should hope to reverse this trend, to be more emphatic to our opposition, to be wary against the advent of the virtual echo chamber known as the internet. For with partisanship, there can be no compromise. With no compromise, no harmony. With no harmony, no society.

Related posts:

A standalone mountain top the Ambuluwawa peak is well known amongst locals. It is situated in Gampola and its clear and apparent presence marks a familiar landmark giving character to the region…

Why Does Alcohol Give You a Headache? Drunkenness is an uncomfortable physical and mental state that usually occurs after consuming large or small amounts of alcohol. Signs of a hangover include…

The way the sun shines through my windows in the morning, casting a streak of light onto my kitchen counter and floors. My two cats. A fresh manicure. When the dragon lily on my desk at work sprouts…