Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 4)

To continue with this series of essays about human beings we need to examine one more position. It is the center position of the extremes as described in the previous posts.


The absolute extreme of the center is more difficult to describe. The reason being is that it is usually defined as a combination of the two outer extremities, the right and the left. One way to describe it would be that it is an absolute compromise of the absolute extremes. The big problem with this is that it focuses on the outcome without considering what happens to the means.

We as human beings are governed by our principles concerning morality. Those principles influence our every decision of behavior. What a compromised solution does is necessitate a change of behavior without consideration of the beliefs involved. The behavior has changed but the principle held still remains. In other words, the man has become a hypocrite to his beliefs and with each compromise he makes the more of a hypocrite he is. And with each compromise made the easier it becomes to compromise again.

A man who is willing to compromise is a liar. For that man is portraying himself to the world as being somebody that he is not. His behavior belies his beliefs. Most important is the fact that he is betraying the most important person in his life, himself. In order to live with himself truth would have to have no meaning to this person.

And like lies one compromise will, inevitably, lead to another compromise. Sooner or later this man will be forced to face the truth about himself and when this happens he will have to suffer the consequences of his own making. Since compromise cannot be justified on its own merits then it only can be justified by demeaning the purity of the absolute extreme positions in some manner or another.

The big problem with this position concerns responsibility and doing things the right way or the wrong way. This is a position of shared responsibility. This would be a position where all behavior is behavior that is considered as being both determined and of free will. This alone would declare this position as being self-contradictory. Why would we want someone to accept responsibility for a behavior that they have no control over? We would be blaming the victim of this behavior if we hold him responsible. Is that the right thing to do?

It is also a position where right and wrong must be considered as being blurred. Some would even say that there is no right or wrong way of doing things. This would be a position of amorality. It would be a position taken where evaluation of behavior is not influenced by one's sense of morality. The only conclusion that a person can come to based on the premises allowed is that responsibility of the behavior cannot be ascertained logically without presupposing responsibility. This would go against the whole idea of the meaning of justice.

This would presuppose that something else other than a sense of morality should be used to ascertain responsibility. What else can people possess on an equal basis that could be used as a determinant of responsibility that would not be biased and prejudicial? What else can people possess on an equal basis that does not automatically declare one person guilty and another person innocent of behavior simply by the possession of it? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that doesn't automatically prevent a relationship between two persons of different positions of society? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that would restrict the behavior of each equally?

What say you, my friends? Can someone provide me an answer to my questions?