What we owe each other

By Segun Gbadegesin

These are trying times. Insecurity has become the unfortunate norm and tension is understandably high. Between the rulers and the ruled, there is a deep-seated mistrust. One-time partners have suddenly become bitter adversaries. Before we approach the precipice of national existence, it is a good time to remind ourselves about what we owe each other. But to come to terms with what we owe each other, we must first understand what we have in common. What binds us together such that it demands of each of us specific obligations toward the other?

What we have in common is not a common ethnicity. Neither is it a common citizenship. Nor is it a common religion. While some of us have each of these in common, each is also a basis for differentiation in other respects. Citizens are different from aliens in respect of their relationship to the nation. But there is something that a citizen has in common with a resident alien. And there is something an Orisa worshipper has in common with a Muslim even when they differ on account of the Being they worship.

Our common humanity is what binds us together despite the artificial differences of ethnicity, nationality, or religion. The same blood runs through our veins. We share the dualism of body and soul. In addition to being commonly susceptible to physical and emotional pain and suffering, we also possess in common the distinctive quality of dignity which makes us objects of respect. We have the ability to think and plan our future and we have the inbuilt capacity to empathize with others.

Now, while everyone readily concurs that he or she is endowed with every quality in the foregoing characterization of our common humanity, not everyone acts in ways that show or demonstrate that he or she recognizes the humanity of others. If we all did, we would not have the unfortunate cases of inhumanity of humans against fellow humans. We would not have kidnappers dehumanizing other human beings. We would not have killer herders maiming farmers and destroying their crops for the sake of cows.

The crux of what we owe each other is the recognition of our common humanity, its essential character, its basic needs and requirements, and the willingness, when we are able, to help facilitate its triumph over handicaps and obstacles. And since most of us claim allegiance to one or another religion, it is important to underscore the fact that this demand of recognition is the least common denominator of all religions.

But it is not just the monopoly of religion. It is also at the heart of every humanistic ethos.

What does such a recognition entail? What are we required to avoid doing or to do when we recognize the common humanity of others? Both religious and secular ethics settle on these two broad categories: things we must not do and things we must do. For don’ts, we are enjoined not to kill, steal, or defraud others, etc. For do’s, we are enjoined to help others in need. Perhaps, for reason of enforceability, our laws and statutes focus on the former rather than the later. We don’t generally have laws enforcing the obligation of charity.

Let us admit that a general observance of the don’ts in our legal system would serve us well as it ensures a peaceful and stable society, which in turn may enhance our individual ability to take care of ourselves without needing the charity of others. This is why the enforcement of those laws are of prime importance and why a society in which they are not, must be deemed as violating the requirement to recognize and respect our common humanity. It is also why we are gravely disappointed when our elected officials fail in their responsibility to enforce the law, thus endangering our common humanity.

When laws that are supposed to enforce citizens’ obligation to refrain from harming other citizens are trampled upon and government feigns ignorance or appears helpless, citizens are at the mercy of criminals as their humanity is abused and disrespected. We just heard about the pain of parents losing their job-seeking young daughter to a rapist-killer! It hurts and demeans us all.

We have an obligation to speak out in protest. We owe the young victim a duty in virtue of the common humanity we share to not let her killers escape justice. Furthermore, we owe each other the obligation to struggle to prevent a future occurrence. When we hear of protests motivated by systemic injustice in other climes, it is this obligation that individuals rally to discharge. Our common humanity beckons us to similar conduct. It may be misconstrued by governments as illegitimate or hostile, but that is their take. Ours is respect for the common humanity that they sometimes despise.

As important as the duty to refrain from harming others is, it doesn’t exhaust our moral obligations. Importantly, we have an obligation to help others. This is especially important in the time and era that we find ourselves with many people hurting through no fault of their own. And just as the duty to refrain from harming others, the duty to help is also common to all ethical traditions.

In African traditional religions, as in almost every known religious tradition, emphasis is placed on kindness, not just to relatives but also to strangers. In the Orisa tradition of the Yoruba, Orunmila admonishes his followers to be kind because kindness begets kindness. We are assured that the calabash of a kind person doesn’t break. The dish of a kind person doesn’t crack. Instead, a kind person will have an abundance of wealth and children. In other words, there is no regret in practicing kindness.

Zakat is a core obligation in Islam. Muslims are required to help the poor and needy in proportion to their means. They are urged to be liberal in giving because whatever good they send off before their souls, they shall find it with Allah, echoing the Biblical injunction to Christians to provide for their house in Heaven by giving to the needy here on earth.

In the Christian faith, Jesus Christ personified this attitude to humanity with his own ministry of teaching, healing, and compassion. He did not just focus on evangelization. He deliberately sought after the welfare and wellbeing of people. Whenever he saw his followers in pain or in need, he had compassion over them. It was this compassion that led him to feed 5000 people and 4000 people on different occasions.

Jesus also taught compassion. With the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus established charity as a requirement for the faithful, insisting that our neighbors are not necessarily those living next door to us. They are whoever crosses our path and needs our help. As we also see in that parable, we don’t have to have a common ethnicity or religion. The Levite who bypassed the robbery victim was of Jewish origin and faith as the victim. The Good Samaritan, on the other hand, was of a different faith. Yet he was used by God to come to the aid of a Jew because he saw in him a common humanity.

On their part, secular philosophers of various persuasions are united in their embrace of charity as our moral obligation. We are to act in such a way as to bring about the most good or happiness. Lack of basic needs detracts from human happiness. Not knowing where the next meal will come from is stressful. Many children face such predicaments for no fault of their own. If we are endowed, we have an obligation to help those less endowed.

And should anyone feel unmotivated to help others, he or she must remember that by having such a mindset, he or she is signaling to others to have the same mindset. The problem is that since no one knows the future, everyone soon need the help of others, but will not get it because others would have shared her or his uncaring mindset.

Make the world better for humanity. Lend a hand to those in need.