Prometheus Bound

                                                                                             

Aeschylus bound him,ⁱ but Shelleyⁱⁱ cut him loose. In both cases they were alluding to physical binding and to the “crime” of bringing fire to mankind. Fire can be both an important aid to humanity, and a terrible danger. Fire is a two-edged sword – like so many of our treasures. The forest fire so feared by everyone can clear away the old dead brush and trees, leaving room for new growth. But there is much room for disagreement about fire's value and its risks, as well as about the way it was obtained. So, although Prometheus thought that stealing fire and bringing it to humanity was worth the risk, both binding and setting loose are understandable payments for Prometheus's enterprise.

But binding is not always a physical act. Less visible, while possibly more hindering, are the bounds set by society – those that limit what one can think or say or do. In the wild state, there are no external bounds set on what an animal does except, perhaps, fear of the consequences of our actions. An animal may set the boundaries of the territory that he will defend. The “State of Nature” is outside of society.ⁱⁱⁱ There is anarchy, and survival depends upon brains and brawn. Morality is not an issue.

Within a society, however, risk is largely mitigated at the cost of some of the freedom of action that exists outside; survival, stability, and security increase as anarchy is eliminated. There is law – not the “law of the jungle,” but man-made statutes for which we are all accountable. We are bound by the words of the law and of precedents, even if we had no say in their establishment. A government has been established to supervise and protect the lives and property of those in its jurisdiction.

But who set up that government? And what if we disagree with some of the rules they established? To what degree do those who preceded us speak for us? Whatever happened to Democracy?

Unfortunately we cannot relive the past. We have to live by it. Or maybe it's “fortunately.” Society^iv was instituted to protect us from each other, and to set the rules by which we live. We need laws to guide our actions. Those laws may have been made by those who preceded us and who, in that sense, speak for us. At least they speak for us as long as the laws last. It is a basic tenet of democracy that although we are bound by the decisions of the past, they are changeable – either by a modification in the understanding of what those decisions mean, or by absolute change in the law arrived at through an orderly, democratic, process. And we always have. We accept the constraints of international law (to some degree, at least), and of parental control and responsibility for infants, and of proxies in a variety of situations. From time to time the rules may have to change, but that is in our power. 

Our founding document, the Constitution, contains mechanisms for change and, within a year of its adoption, the process of amendment had already begun. The criteria for constitutional change, either by further amendment or by convention, are stiff – perhaps too stiff – but the Founding Fathers established the rules of the game and the states accepted them. And we're bound by them. 

 

That's the way rules work. It's the same if they are the rules of a game, an organization, or a government. For better or worse, it's also a pattern of human behavior and that may be the reason we accept it so willingly. We feel ourselves bound by the oaths we take, the promises we make, and by appointments.^v “That's the way we've always done it” seems to be justification enough for a rule. It's comfortable. Any deviation from what we've always done requires good justification. In the interim we yield to the ones who made the rules.

That's the weakness of the system though. We defer to the judgments of men^vi who may not be smarter than we but, whether we like it or not, they got there first, and it's sometimes harder to change the rules than to set them. It doesn't matter if the rules or laws are just or unjust. It's easier^vii to go along than to risk punishment for deviation. The deviation may be from the words of men in the past, or those who have power at present and can change the rules to suit their own purposes. Certainly there are those who willingly accept the penalties resulting from violation of the rules, but they are the minority.^viii Too many of us take a safer path, even if we consider it wrong. We fear the consequences. It is that kind of fear upon which any tyrannical^ix government is based.

Also troubling is the knowledge that whatever the origin of the rules,^x the interpretation of a few individuals – their determination of what the canons mean – is controlling, whether that was or was not the intent of those who framed them. We've accepted that also. In the case of our Constitution and its interpretation, for example, the Supreme Court can't be questioned, although constitutional amendment is possible and later on the Court may change its mind. And in the case of most of our laws, regulators make the rules by which we have to live. It's not always the decisions of the past that rule us but often current rule-makers.

But that's the system. And it doesn't apply to secular laws alone. The Bible, or Koran, or other foundational document, containing what believers accept as G-d's word, directs us to the path we must follow. (We live by the sweat of our brows, and we give birth in pain because our ancestors strayed from that path. We're bound by actions as well as words. History tells us that.) The explication of the details, however, is often decided by humans and we may thus be obliged to follow man-made, or man-“explained,” rules while we are trying to comply with divine ordinances. For those who attribute some or all of what is written in those books to their ancestors, the mediation of other men, as is the case with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, takes the process one step further from the intent of the author or authors. And since human viewpoints change from time to time,^xi the understanding of laws – secular or divine – is likely to change as well.

Is that the kind of system we want? Do we want to be obliged to follow rules in whose making we played no part, and with which we may not agree? It's a hard question to answer, and one with many parts. From my perspective, however, the bottom line answer is “yes,” but there are many exceptions, and it's probable that the exceptions will be different depending on where you live and what the rules are there. And it will depend on you – what are your core beliefs, whether you are an absolutist or relativist, and whether you are a martyr or not.

What approaches can you take? If you prefer the outlook of another society to your own, you should consider a change of location. If it is the religious beliefs with which you take issue, perhaps a change of religion or its abandonment is worth your consideration. But if you consider that the rules that you follow are, whatever their faults, basically appropriate, then you should be working to change them to the degree that you find them incorrect. It may require personal sacrifice of time or money or, if you feel strongly enough about the subject, civil disobedience and the penalties that follow. But if you believe, as I do, that society, on the whole, is an improvement on the chaos of the State of Nature, then you'll probably accept the idea that we are bound by the rules that have been set up, and they should be followed until we can change them. Laws are a two-edged sword. They can help us and they can hurt us. But until we can achieve a society in which they're all good, we'll have to accept the value and risks they bring.

Next episode: “Stout Zombies" -- High, not wide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i        “Prometheus Bound,” Aeschylus (at least it's usually attributed to him), probably the fifth century BCE.

ii       “Prometheus Unbound,” Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1820.

iii     Nature may still set geographical and meteorological bounds, but the rules of human interaction are up to us.

iv     Which is, according to Wikipedia, “the civil power which exists to enforce contracts and the laws of nature generally.”

v        At least we should.

vi      Shorthand for “people.”

vii     And it requires far less thought. It's easier to do as you're told and defend your actions with the standard excuse: “I was only following orders.” It's not always right, however. In fact, it's usually wrong.

viii    Civil disobedience has a long and honored history. The example of Rosa Parks is one we should all remember.

ix     Whether fascist, communist, or one based on any other self-serving or undemocratic practice. When the governing power uses force freely to control those whom it rules, there will be few who protest. Most will accept the dictates of those in power rather than risk whatever consequences follow on their disobedience to the wishes of their rulers.

x       Some rules are made solely for the benefit of the lawmaker and his friends.

xi      And from society to society. We call that “cultural relativism.”