Perhaps the foremost taboo preoccupying
Westerners in the morass that is today's social milieu is the subject of
hatred. To the typical Joe Lunchbucket, 'hate' is a manifestation of a
residual pathology in the human condition still lingering just below the
surface, which is to be both despised and cast aside without further ado
or review. Woe unto the heretic who dares buck this trend, for what
logicians refer to as argumentum ad populum, or the fallacy that
what is widely accepted is true, has become an element in the modern model
of social conformity to which any would be transgressor dares not trespass
unless his aim is to be labeled a 'hater', whose destination is the
proverbial leper colony, cut off from 'respectable' society.
Our people tend to have a smug sense
of superiority in that we believe that the inroads of modern technology,
its concomitant luxury, and the general affluence found in this
postindustrial age necessarily gives us standing to think of ourselves as
ultra-modern sophisticates, far and away above the rude beaten path of the
so-called 'Age of Faith' of our 'superstitious' forbearers. Alas, such is
not the case. The end of history has not yet come. Man, the eternal
leopard, has not changed his spots, and as in previous times when a
sense of superficial superiority reigned, the underlying failings of our
species are still in evidence, albeit in altered form. Whilst past ages
saw supposedly infallible creeds preached and witches burnt, our age,
consistent with the new reality of vertical propaganda made possible by
technological development, has enthroned new dogmas, infinitely more
perverse and all encompassing than the aforementioned methods of
yesterday's mechanism of social control. The fanatical venom leveled at
our bugaboo, hatred, and those accused of carrying its banner, is every
bit equal to the intensity of scorn heaped upon the ideas and victims of
the worst stages of the Auto-da-fe. Moreover, it is far more insidious, as
before the slaying of the unrepentant was an open and declared act;
unconcerned with such pretensions as 'free speech' or 'free thought';
principles asserted to be near absolute in our time, but which are in
reality in a state of suspension, if not de jure than certainly
de facto.
Herbert Spencer noted long ago that the
pressure exerted by the social far exceeds that exerted by the legal, for
the desire to conform, found in all herd animals of which humans are but
one variant, is everywhere more compelling than laws which may or may not
be consistent with the spirit of the age. This spirit of the age, as Hegel
showed, is the prerequisite for legal restraint, not its consequence, and
this prerequisite is part of the pre-existent socio-cultural reality that
demands obeisance to the herd, irrespective of positive law, in every
clime and in every era.
As the faulty nature of consensus by mass
mentality is self-evident, we turn to a more scientific alternative.
Eschewing all allegiance to fallacies of relevance, I will demonstrate
that the feeling of hatred, far from being a destructive leftover of human
evolution, is an inherently healthy survival mechanism, which is
likely necessary for the continuance of man on this earth. Furthermore, I
will employ sound logical methods, which hold that an argument is to be
accepted or rejected on its own merit or demerit, without regard for
over-emotive diversions of the type commonly seen in discussions of this
subject.
Contrary to popular opinion, hatred is not
an evil a priori. It carries no moral designation per se.
Rather, its legitimacy rests on its aim. As Lewis Carroll pointed
out, hatred is nature's natural defense mechanism for a love. If one loves
his wife, it is natural for him to hate another man who kills or otherwise
harms her. Hatred, as it typically stirs the passions and arouses one from
complacency, is also a useful motivator to bring perpetrators to justice.
It can serve as an implement for much good in rectifying wrongs.
We see that in truth, far from being
wrong intrinsically, hatred is the flipside of love. In fact, there can be
no measure of love without hatred.
Confucius said that it takes an honorable
man to both love and hate his enemies. In fact, one can say that by hating
an enemy, that enemy is honored. When you think about it, to hate an enemy
is to give him special attention which only the most intense feelings can
generate. It is almost flattering to be hated; for as love is hatred's
close relative, it cannot be far behind. In the Nietzschean sense, it is
wise to love (and be proud of) one's foe as well, for in so doing, one
becomes party to his deeds. Such feelings soon attain a higher plane of
ethics, and if something loved is defended, hatred transcends; for as
Nietzsche rightly said, "What is done out of love is beyond good and
evil."
At this point several objections will
naturally arise, foremost of which is the standard Christian
precept involving Jesus' teaching to "Love your enemies." (Luke 6:27;
Matthew 5:44) This injunction can be debated, but the real issue is one of
interpretation, for there is more than a little doubt about what he truly
meant. As we have seen, this teaching is not inherently in contravention
to the words of Nietzsche. Moreover, this objection demands context, for
Jesus himself was speaking within the framework of Judea, i.e., he was
telling his kinsmen to love one another. Did not Jesus himself tell the
alien Canaanite woman: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel"?
(Matthew 15:24)
There are also those who will object that
God is a loving God, and would not sanction hatred. Such people are
invariably unfamiliar with their Bible, for Yahweh himself declared his
hatred on more than one occasion. Case in point:
"Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I
have HATED, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his
inheritance to the desert jackals" (Malachi 1:2-3) (emphasis
added) Similar wording is found in Romans 9:13 in reference to the same.
Psalm 5:5 states that Yahweh "hates all who
do wrong"; further on in Psalm 11:5 we see that "those who love violence
his soul hates." The book of Psalms is loaded with such synonyms as
'abhor,' and in fact can be said to quite possibly be the most hateful
collection of writings in literature, as it is full of demands on God to
bring disaster on the enemies of those making the requests (mainly David).
Other declarations that Yahweh hates can be
found in the book of Jeremiah, and the general tone of the Old Testament,
as many have noted before, is one of a vengeful, wrathful, jealous God
abusing his 'chosen people' and others
None of this is to say that Yahweh isn't a
"loving God," for scripture is replete with statements that he is; but the
above does serve to show that even with Yahweh, hatred and love are two
sides of the same shekel. This 'love-hate' relationship, incidentally,
also does much to square the controversy between Christians who say theirs
is a God of love, and their anti-Christian opponents who point out - with
more than a little embarrassment for Christians - that Yahweh is a God of
hatred as well.
A further objection is found in that
hatred, in stirring one to a fury, often clouds proper judgment. This is
no doubt true, but just as in anything else, moderation is called for. The
golden mean of temperance is applicable here, for what we might refer to
as a 'controlled rage'. To simply throw the baby out with the bath water
is no solution; the excessive zeal in misapplying an often useful tool has
never been seen as justification to dispense with the tool itself.
It should be held forthwith as a
self-evident axiom that hatred, bearing no ethical assignment in and of
itself, is something to be judged not on its own weight but on the
consequences drawn thereby. It is highly presumptuous to assume that
quaint bouts of ignorance are unique to times past. We must look beyond
dogmatic and irrational prejudices, even if our collective ego is bruised
in addressing our own ignorance in our own age.
Bibliography
Herbert Spencer, Social Statics
(Robert Shackelford Press, 1995)
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The
Philosophy of Right (Oxford University Press, New Ed edition, 1967)
Confucius, The Analects (London:
Penguin Classics; 1 edition, 1998)
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and
Evil (Vintage paperback, 1989)