rights vs. grace

so i've been thinking a lot about just what the hell we're supposed to be doing here on this planet before we die. this is an important question--every few months or so i have this weird run-in with the knowledge that i'm going to die some time. me and the idea sort of circle, and box, and then it fades away and i go back to doing whatever i was doing. but facing death is also facing life, and the question "just what are you going to do" looms large.

so i have been thinking of what people have thought was important to do with your life. i especially like to think about the medieval period and the modern period. and in this context, the question "just what are you going to do with what you have" becomes modified into "just what do i have?"

in the modern period, life is governed by the idea of rights. every human being ostensibly has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. there are other rights in the american constitution: free speech, privacy, bear arms, etc. we have this idea that every human SHOULD have these things, DESERVES these things, and if they do not have these things, there is a real problem.

advantages to rights: spreading of wealth, democracy, the common man's opinon matters (or at least appears to matter). reduction in physical suffering, disease, starvation. rights for women and racial minorities is a big, important one. lots of good stuff.

disadvantages to rights: but is it workable? really? CAN everyone in the world live a long, healthy life, free speech, bear arms, enough food, decent housing, etc? the current envirionmental crisis seems to say 'no.' but this is the ideal of a rights-based system, a world where everyone has at least an equally good opportunity to obtain the things they need. but honestly, if everyone lived and consumed and polluted like americans (and all of this strictly within their rights), the world would probably explode tomorrow.

dont get me wrong. i dont want to rip on rights! im a lady, and i love voting. i love eating enough. i love the idea that this powerful dude can't stomp on all of these poor people just for fun (although actually that still happens pretty frequently...). but in the past year i've been thinking a lot about nature and conservation, and im doubting whether the democratic ideal is either possible or desirable, ultimately.

see because nature runs on sacrifice. things EAT other things. they have to. some things die so other things can live--there is no escaping it. i used to think plants had it figured out, cause they just eat good old sunlight, but no, they push and strangle each other out of the way to get to it. if humans are a part of nature (as indeed we are), why do we think we can escape this rule?

which brings me to the idea of grace. in medieval times, the idea was that everything, EVERYTHING people had was a gift. there are scriptures in the bible (a fairly important text to those folk) that dictate that god grants humans every single breath. this seems to imply that if god ceased to provide my next breath and i died choking, i would have nothing to really complain about, since i wasn't entitled to any of the others either. i should just be grateful for what i have received up to this moment.

advantages of this perspective: every moment probably seems like a miracle. there is no existential despair about suffering in the world, envy or covetousness (im sure people were envious, but just in a greedy way, not in a victimized, despairing "omg everyone has life liberty and happiness, why don't i?" way). and when suffering does come your way, it is probably easier to deal with cause hey, you had no reason to expect NOT to suffer.

disadvantages: complacency ('that guy's poor? well god made him poor so im not feedin him'). basically the big problem with this perspective is the acceptance of suffering to the degree that no one does anything about it, which was the big problem in the middle ages. (plagues? marauding kings? eh. god's will.)

i guess ill do the aristotle and take the middle road? i dont think people everywhere are entitled to every comfort, although i wish we were. as difficult as it is to accept, life runs on sacrifice. something had to suffer and die so that i could eat lunch and stay alive. maybe tomorrow i will suffer and die so that something else can eat me (this is all very lion king isn't it, only 'the circle of life' isn't so nice and fluffy). but on the other hand this knowledge doesn't excuse me from doing everything i can to help relieve suffering around me, and the suffering i can't relieve, i can at least respect--pray over my food, be grateful for my sweat-shop made t-shirt, try to think about the little kids that sewed it.

but even on the middle road the answer isn't easy. if i conclude that everything in life is a gift, and its not a crime for me to petition for more, but i still feel that i ought to do what i can to help others, what constitutes 'what i can'? mother teresa gave up EVERYTHING, man. EVERYTHING. to go relieve sick people in a foreign country for her WHOLE LIFE. hypothetically i could do that, although i really, really dont want to. or is it ok to kick back and enjoy the gifts of 'grace'? the food i can buy with my easy money, my comfy bed. jesus turned water into wine for the party at cana right? of course then he spent the next three years among the dregs of society, healing and blessing. just how much is required of me? why do i have the sickening feeling that the answer is "all of it"?

all done.

ps sorry all my heroes here are christians, buddha gave everything up too, and mohammed sure paid some prices to do what he thought was right. its not a christian thing, its a humans and god and nature thing.