I wrote it, but it could do with better organization, explanation, etcetera.
b
Through centuries of war and peace, poverty and aristocracy, and brutality as well as kindness, many have been led down similar paths into questioning the capability of humans to care. Could it possibly be that cruel killers are no worse than those who donate to charities? Our culture applauds the generous, but are these acts ones of selflessness or selfishness? Now, it is evident that we must reexamine, "How humane is humanity?"
What motivates humans to commit acts of good and evil? One mindset argues that the core and instinctual justification for both said actions is power. Could this really be? "Saints and psychopaths" aside, I continue to disagree that the main force behind human action is to gain power over others. People care for their families without the necessity for control. The "king model," as I've dubbed it, in which a man might kill his brother for the crown, cannot apply to all or most people. What drives this hunger for power in the king model is an uncommon selfishness. This is one of the few points where the idea of action in equality to greed applies. Politicians must campaign for support, some through friendship, others fear, but we are not all politicians.
In my knowledge and experience, I have witnessed and read about many extraordinary acts of selflessness. Just because an armed robbery makes the headlines of local news does not mean that a town is necessarily plighted by unrest. Our media tries to recognize the issues, but, often, censors human success. The fact of the matter is this: What people should be doing doesn't sell as well as what they shouldn't. Modern society is infatuated with its own faults and, as a result, our more exemplary points are muted.
People cannot possibly hate one another automatically. Humans have such a deep power for interpreting situations that we've come to understand one another better than with any other species. Perhaps, some may say, that it is a weakness to only be able to recognize and relate to the experiences of those so similar to ourselves, but I believe that this is a great accomplishment. We've been taught to understand one another. The mere fact that people can be triggered into crying during a movie seems to prove this deeply embodied power.
People care. It is evident in the acts of individuals like Mother Teresa and countless unmentioned others. They cannot possibly all be anomalies. Whether we like it our not, humans will treat each other as (near) equals until there is something that convinces them otherwise. Slavery in America is a very clear example of this. So long as people were taught to believe that those of African descent were animals, then there was little friction, but as it became evident and supported that this was not so, change was made.
As much as I would condone and encourage activist groups that protect the rights of animals and the environment, the rights of humans ought to come first. One program that I believe should be put into place is the equivalent to an animal rights group, something I call PETH, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans. Some may argue that this is not necessary and say that people already have the capability and conscience that this would provide. Others state that people cannot be inspired at all to do better for others unless they were to be benefited directly by this kindness. They might even claim that my efforts would be hypocritical because I would do them only for the purpose of gaining power. I disagree.
It is only fair that one should practice kindness to others. Nearly every religion or guiding set of rules tells followers to treat others as they wish to be treated. This is no coincidence. Looking beyond the immediate benefit, even in a scientific sense, all is for the general advancement of a species, a group, a family. Take care of your family.
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
