The Pleasure of witnessing to the Truth versus that of Pampering the monkey on our backs.

Pilate raised a question to Jesus, “What is truth?” There are as many definitions of truth as branches of science there are. The epistemologist defines it as the conformity between reality and the intellect. Jesus, on the other hand did not define truth but presented himself as the truth. This is not puzzling because God’s attributes are in his very essence.

In history, some people have not only known the truth but have also convincingly witnessed to it even to the point of shedding their blood. The inscription written on the Cross of Christ that he is the son of God was a reality despite the fact that the Jews found him fitting to be crucified for calling himself the son of God. They were the ones in error. Galileo Galilei insisted on witnessing to the fact that the earth rotates about the sun and not vice versa. There are very many others that have lived a life witnessing to the truth, some of whom have been silenced, persecuted or even isolated. Why is it that lovers and doers of the promptings of the truth are persecuted, anyway?

Our point of focus in this article is on moral truth. There is that inner voice of the human conscience which does not cease to re-echo the truth; the right thing to do. If anyone claims that their conscience is not doing it well enough, there are structures put in place to amplify this sound. These include religion, education, culture among others. There is a way things must be conducted and that way is embedded in our very nature and reinforced by our social structures.

I write this article in honour of the valour of the Uganda Martyrs as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of their canonization. Their witness is to act as an example to every point I am to raise in this reflection on pleasure.

In order to do the morally acceptable, it must be voluntary, one must have the knowledge about it and the courage to do it. Therefore, prudence is right at the centre of moral life. When one does what is morally right, there is something that accompanies this activity. It is what Aristotle calls pleasure. On the other hand, there is doing the wrong thing simply in the name of seeking pleasure. It is puzzling indeed to arrive at the fact that pleasure accompanies the activity of doing right and doing the wrong. But is it the same experience? Can it be that opposing sides have the same outcome? Can we call the experience of subjects disregarding the immoral commands of the king the same with the that of the king as he orders his royal soldiers to be burned to death? The subjectivists argue that pleasure depends on the individual. What is pleasurable to me may not be the same for you. Where does this leave the moral acts that are objective?

It is really important to open our eyes in line with the topic at hand to the fact that pleasure accompanies the activity of doing what is morally right, witnessing to the truth. On the other hand, what we experience or aim at when we pamper the monkey on our backs, though other philosophers and moralists call it pleasure or bad pleasure, it does not sound the same to me. It just seems to resemble pleasure, but not explicitly so. If there is no name for it as yet, I leave this open for naming by others. Obviously, it cannot be pain simply because pain comes later and it cannot be remorse since some people’s consciences are dead or corrupted.

Apart from pleasure being a natural concomitant of an activity, no one can define this experience except the experiencer. It follows that pleasure is not an activity but just an accompaniment. This fact enables us to ably get offboard the school of thought of Eudoxus and other hedonists who claim that pleasure is the highest good and therefore an activity. Pleasure is neither an activity nor a process but rather an accompaniment of an activity. The question why activities of the senses and of the mind are accompanied by experience at all will not be discussed here.

So many criticisms and questions can arise about whether it is the case that pleasure accompanies a rational activity. When put in a situation where you have to choose between being immoral and being burned to death if you refuse, which choice could be pleasurable? And which one could seem pleasurable? There is a clear cut between being and seeming to be, the former is real, and the latter is an illusion. The Uganda Martyrs had the guts to tell those burning them to add more firewood. They were not coerced, nor did they do it in the name of being praised years later. They genuinely witnessed to the moral and religious truth so much so that they found pleasure in doing it. Even Kizito whom the others had planned to leave at home since he was young, had to tie a thread on the door such that as they open the door to go, he is awakened. This is the pleasure I am talking about that ultimately leads to happiness.

John the Baptist told Herold how it was not morally right to be with the wife of his brother. But at the end of the day John is beheaded on the orders of Herold. This was done in the name of selfishness, what I called; pampering the monkey on one’s back. Did this act bring Herold pleasure? Did it bring John the Baptist pleasure? We are told that Herold was unhappy about it so much so that though he did not believe in the resurrection, when he heard about Jesus, he thought he was John the Baptist raised from the dead.

Why is it that we do wrong in the name of seeking pleasure? But is what we seek that way really pleasure? In the first place, we do wrong when we try to pamper the monkey on our backs. There is that experience or feeling which accompanies this activity too, I have really failed to accord it the term, pleasure. On the side of the morally voluntary activity, it may contain experiences of pain, sorrow, grief but pleasure crowns it all, on the other hand, the wrong doer experiences seemingly so-called pleasure in the process of the activity and pain at the end of the day. You come across a husband faithful to his wife, enduring all the temptations and not seeking out any other women. He has to restrain himself whenever he meets other beautiful ladies wherever he goes. This can be stressing and hard to endure. But the pleasure that accompanies it results from the fact that he maintains a healthy relationship with his wife and their marriage is free of sexually transmitted diseases. Does it then mean that those who sleep around do not have or maintain healthy relationships or even get affected with sexually related diseases and spread them? They may try to keep their activity as safe as possible but in the long run, the effects dictate the experience.

When one uses his own funds, and another uses embezzled funds to construct a house, will those two people have the same experience about constructing the house? I don’t intend to ask about the same degree of experience but rather the kind. Can it be pleasure for both or some different experience for each one?

Some political philosophers assert that individuals are selfish. Individuals are gatherers. But can’t I gather what is only mine, if it is anyway scattered because it may not? Why do I gather what belongs to others in the false name of giving it out to them later? If the monkey can live independently in the forest and survive without me, why should I pamper it on my back, why can’t I let it go?

Conclusively, I appreciate the fact that some philosophers claim that some pleasures are good while others are bad. In this sense, good pleasures are so because they still contain their goodness, and bad pleasures are bad because of their deficiency in their goodness and hence lead us astray. Pleasure is essential to life simply because it perfects life since life itself is an activity whose aim is happiness. When we do what is right, this activity is accompanied by pleasure and finally happiness. This is what made the Uganda Martyrs flourish, we call them blessed because out of voluntarily defending the truth, they became happy. This path is not easy but it’s worth trying.