The Lonely Sheepdog

One remarks easily one the vast philosophical gulf that separates people engaged in different professions even when there should be not reason for it.

Having dealt with a friend who chose to go into theater acting, I was not surprised that she was a pacifist but she was extremely surprised and horrified that I had joined the military. She simply could not folly the chain of logical arguments of why I believe killing is an acceptable and necessary part of civilized life. Here goes my stab at discerning why we differ so much.

Human beings live in a world of limited resources, attention span, and time. The need to act well before we can form a fully logical proof is clear and we do so whatever our consciousness says. Some people understand the limited nature of their experience and try to live according general principles and will only act if they have a logical reason to. That approach requires either a perfectly understood and applicable philosophy or one that is flexible enough to deal with the muddle of existence.

Our limits of attention (if you stare at the bird all day, you won't notice the bear creeping up on you) mean that we must theorize based on limited information. In most modern cases, the ubiquity of entertainment means that the drama of the screen is unconsciously taken be be close to reality. The result is that people form their understanding of military and police operations from movies that currently depict the "dirty Harry" archetype of a bad cop. Feeling that to be the most prevalent type of activity, most halfway decent and nice people will form an aversion to such activity and the professions of policing and arms by extension.

Given the largely unreflective nature of the very peaceful life in the West, people do not often think about violence and its place in society. The efforts to preserve the settled nature of society have been so successful that people now take it for granted.

Normally, I would reject the assumption people's different experiences lead to their philosophies but recently (with much shock) I have begun to realize apathy and boredom are two of the strongest forces in human psychology. She has always lived in a wealthy, safe, and free society. I did not. I grew up in the crime ridden neighborhoods of a major city. I did not believe all the fuss over tolerance due to seeing (up close and personal) the actual state of race relations where the supposed weaker minority was far from concerned with anything but their own power and wealth. Later dealings with such a bureaucracy have left me with a wonderful degree of cynicism.Conflict was all around me and I observed with a rational mind.

The essence of conflict is desire. The desires of two people or actors may be covering the same thing without conflict(both want a new street) but when what they want is exclusive (A wants the street, B wants pristine scrub) there is a conflict. That does not mean they will resort to violence but simply that one person acting on their desires will inhibit the others desires. It is the wonderful achievement of society and civilization that we are able to cooperate and limit our desires for a moment in order to achieve greater things.

This is a social arrangement that allows people to accomplish their desires or to be guided in them in such a way that people are mostly free but not unduly inconvenienced. Unfortunately, some will simply see people with things they want and will try by various ways to get what they want without complying to the ways permitted by society (e.g. a person just deciding to drain his company's account in order to buy a fancy car) in such a way that is harmful either specific people or to the society as a whole (often by presenting a bad example or humiliating the honest). There are many ways to deal with such people but the generally peaceful environment of society means that if a person uses threats of force to impose their will, few will resist as they do not have the experience, tools, or aggression to do so.

Both the violent offender and the preserver of order (police or soldiers) use violence as their tool. The most powerful type is killing. We humans are so inventive that often the easiest way of dealing violence is to kill and so the preparedness to do so is necessary to preserve society. Several people have explained it as Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves. The sheep are peaceful but are week and can stray into danger. A wolf can easily kill and eat a sheep and would meet its desires well by doing so. The Sheepdog may look like a wolf (both have fangs and aggression) but its job is to protect the sheep from themselves and wolves. The sheep may resent to oversight and hate the sheepdog but he keeps them safe.

To me, this is clear. To her, it is not.

I think that it is most largely due to people subconsciously assuming that that which is not necessary in their individual life is not necessary in public life and that all people think roughly the same way. Not everybody needs to be a cop but society needs somebody to do the job. People are free to choose their job so they don't often get exposed to the need for other jobs.

That effect is allowed to exist in relatively safe environments in which people have been disciplined enough while young or self-controlled enough that they won't start a major fight in the street or kill and rob a person for a phone. The job of the police is to prevent such things by continuously exerting their presence to make people quietly give up any hopes of gain by violent means. Most people even don't realize theft and assault are frequent in other areas and deplore the violence of the police in securing the area.

That one person is peaceful and lives in a peaceful and orderly world leads a person of normal attention span to ignore the reason for the armed men does not give them a serious understanding of life at the edges of order. She hopes (and from movies assumes it is possible) that opponents may be non-violently subdued. She has never dealt with determined people with guns.

So where is the second part of the initial question? What of the different professions? She is an actress who by definition works in the land of dreams. I am a soldier who must deal with the nastier parts of human desire and their consequences (without much opportunity to escape cleaning up). The normal process of life reinforces in me the need to deal with ever-present problems of life, death, and the general survival and welfare of most people. She deals in hopes and despairs. The very movings of the human heart. Certainly war and killing have a very strong emotional impact but they are largely impervious to wishful thinking or often the result of it.

The boredom of most people in the Settled and Civilized West is such that people make movies about whatever pathos or cause can exert some emotional pull. That people do not seem to live and die by those decisions allows people to be lazy and go with whatever they feel to be nice or the general consensus of idealism. They attach their emotions not to the accomplishment of the task but to the struggle for a better world (while being disconnected from the hard task of doing the accomplishing) and base their goodness on their role in such struggles.

The result is an odd almost-narcissism as people fail to recognize that other people do not have the same values and may be perfectly willing to kill anybody who prevents them from achieving their goal. The result, people with limited attention spans are shaped often by their environment as they will not often think seriously about anything other than that which directly pertains to them.