A theory that attempts to provide a solid explanation why many people seemed to disagree with the verdict on Casey Anthony -- using the cultural notion of "human differences."
 |
| CREDIT: This photo belongs to TheNewJane, Flickr.com, accessed July 2011. |
“If it's your time then, it's your time,” a belief that describes how many people settle the phenomenon of death, despite its under-established nature.
In philosophical analysis, this bears a petitio principii argument, which means it is guilty of circular reasoning. Despite the philosophical nature, this remains a widely accepted belief especially for those who recognize divinity and the theology of life and death.
Growing up with this unverified reverence while studying the Sciences that require empiricism -- draws a set of “intellectual inference.” It includes questions, which expose conflict of ideas, beliefs and philosophy.
Putting it in context
In a given social context, one learns that this belief is culturally-bound, since it is grounded on a cultural assumption that there is a "supreme controller," who administers human life – whether or not one considers it his God, Messiah or Allah.
Regardless of religion, this generational belief dwells on the idea that there is someone who controls one's existence in the physical world. That, there is a “supreme controller,” who sets the fate of human existence -- others may consider this their “destiny.”
While we respect faith and religion, as we recognize one’s milieu, a curious mind will not just stop by accepting the nomenclature of a certain belief, without taking hold of reasons to justify its loopholes.
The verdict on Casey Anthony
The belief has been used by some people to explain one’s fate. Let us take the case of Casey Anthony, a mother suspected of killing her daughter, Caley and was found not guilty of murder charges.
Do you think the cited belief applies to Caley? Is it safe to conclude that Caley upon her death already served her time as a human being at a very young age?
If her mother was proven guilty, should we just dismiss that Casey was just an accessory towards the death of her own daughter? Or, an instrument to fulfill whatever it is that should happen about her daughter's life?
Provided that Casey is innocent, does this imply for every murder victim, there is a person destined to become a suspect? Some would even argue that if death sources out from a "supreme controller," was killing a person really part of the plan?
For a strong believer of the cited belief, the ultimate question would be how come these lawyers and justices who raise the bar for human justice question the death of a child that was planned by the “Controller?” A wise critic would reply, “In the first place, do all law practitioners believe that?"
Human justice versus faith
Human consciousness has progressed bearing this kind of bifurcation of human justice and faith. People set aside human justice when the cause of death is natural or somehow unexplained. Human justice only arises when the cause of death is man-made and thus, someone can be held accountable. This is human nature in action.
How do we justify a person killed by a struck of lightning? Though we could tell the person involved was the victim, could we classify the lightning as the suspect? Would this suspect receive the same attention in relation to a suspect-person in a murder case?
It is imperative to say that this belief has cultural limitations and that it is non-applicable to all social affairs. It may be derived from a culture of veneration that recognizes a “life controller” but has discarded the idea of knowing and unearthing further truths behind.
A group may agree or disagree -- this simple equation boarders the same argument as no single belief absolutely rules this world. It is and has always been a pool of diversity.
Spectra of politics and faith
We can relate this bifurcation to the political spectrum and to the spectrum of faith. This justifies the existence of post-modern stances, which do not directly state a clear "yes" or a clear "no." It is true that questions requiring yes or no are the simplest forms yet require the most thoughts.
In political spectrum, right-leaning, left-leaning, identified with the Left, mostly identified with the Right are in existence. The same way with the spectrum of faith, there are Catholic with reservations, Christian with uncertainties, or God believers with limitations and other variations. There are those who do not believe in any religion at all.
An unsettled discourse
The bifurcation of human justice and faith is one thing that remains unsettled up to the present time. It sheds light on human justice and faith, both sharing an invisible division in the context of human perception -- a junction that is not usually mentioned, though habitually perceived.
This explains why people choose arguments that favor them today, while inevitably embracing the opposing idea that favors them tomorrow.
No literature, even the post-modern paradigms predicted the end of this bifurcation. It remains that each has a different identity and genetic make-up. Each has a different way of processing what he or she perceives. Each assumes a different persona, and each has a different social DNA.
Casey Anthony: guilty or not guilty?
This could have been a long discourse, even endless. However, we have to understand that conflict helps one society achieve another level of understanding, and that human difference is decisive in shaping the future of a certain culture.
In the end, while we cannot approve of all things others believe, there is one cultural notion that can substantially tie our understanding -- that, all of these deviations are due to our differences as human beings. This difference takes into account identity, cultural milieu and experience fed by the society.
This bifurcation recognizes the unsettled clash of beliefs within members of one society. And interestingly, this is one solid explanation why you agree or disagree with the not-guilty verdict on Casey Anthony.
No comments:
Post a Comment