While Prince Philip was the epitome of traditional beliefs and values, in many ways he was also ahead of his time.
Among his thought-provoking and sometimes radical views were the absolute necessity of protecting the environment and the unique importance of the individual spirit if we are to combat social ills.
A Matter of Balance, from which we take these excerpts ahead of his memorial service on Tuesday, was one of many books expounding his broad views.
Despite the fact that it was written 40 years ago, the prince’s opinions still have a powerful resonance.
I do not claim to be a philosopher, but from time to time I am invited to speak to an audience on any topic of my choice. All arguments have to be drawn from personal experience and study, and this makes me think and organize my thoughts. Every philosophical discussion presents pros and cons that need to be weighed.
This is especially true at a time when people seem too ready to take their point of view to the extreme.
I believe that most people, after carefully weighing all the factors, prefer to take a more moderate approach, and it is for this reason that I have called this book A Matter of Balance.
I do not claim to be a philosopher, but from time to time I am invited to speak to an audience on any topic of my choice.
IGNORANCE OF NATURE MAKES OUR WORLD DANGEROUS
Ignorance of nature is certainly a characteristic of most people and the cause of many troubles.
It is easy to say that adults should know better, but every child is born ignorant, and what is more, every year there is a new crop, more and more of which will be grown in the cities. It is unrealistic to assume that children growing up in an urban environment will acquire the same knowledge about the natural environment as children growing up in rural areas.
When children from the poor areas of London were evacuated to the countryside, it was said that many refused to drink cow’s milk, because they believed that real milk only comes from bottles.
At one time, perhaps, the idea arose to appeal to parents to tell their children the facts about our natural environment and try to make sure that they can get acquainted with the greatness, beauty and wonder of nature in both its harsh and gentle reality.
Unfortunately, in this modern enlightened world, experts don’t seem to favor the idea that parents should be held responsible for their children’s education in any way.
Ignorance about nature is certainly a characteristic of most people and the cause of many problems.
A deer hunter recently told me that he came to the conclusion that the more educated people are, the less common sense they have. He then told me about two students who were rock climbing in the Scottish mountains during the winter without telling anyone where they were going. Four days later, he found them dead from exposure to radiation.
If people are ignorant enough to let nature kill them, they can hardly be expected to understand the principles of conservation.
The same ignorance can threaten the entire future of our world. Protecting nature is not a new idea. What’s new is the vastly increased number of people around the world who are taking an active interest.
It can take a very long time to change us genetically, but since we are a thinking species, we are also affected by the evolution of ideas.
The evolution of the idea of conservation gives nature a chance to survive human interference, but may be one of the most important factors in the survival of Homo sapiens itself.
WE NEED FREEDOM TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICE
We live in a so-called liberal society, but in practice I doubt that any previous generation in so-called free countries ever lived under such a thick blanket of restrictive legislation and bureaucratic control.
In theory, we have freed ourselves from suffocating conventions. In fact, we were gradually losing personal responsibility and freedom of choice.
We seem to have reached a wonderful situation where almost half of the population tells the other half what they should do and think, and checks what they do.
In theory, we have freed ourselves from suffocating conventions. In fact, we were gradually losing personal responsibility and freedom of choice.
The fact is that the mentally and morally healthy do not need to be guided, controlled and tested morning, noon and night because morality, among other things, is related to the ability of people to determine the difference between right and wrong.
Today there is a way of expressing things that gives the impression that it is organizations and groups, not individuals, who should have moral attitudes.
We talk about the government, the media, the unions, the church, and so on, as if the group had some character of its own. But the fact is that each of the groups consists of individuals.
BEWARE OF THE POWERFUL FORCES AGAINST FREEDOM
A new philosophy of life emerged. Men are now required to meet rigid standards of mechanical efficiency, and the highest human aspiration becomes nothing less than submission to the industrial herd.
Man is no longer seen as an image of God, each person is unique in His eyes.
The concern for personal development is overshadowed by the more practical need to wind up the human intellect like a clockwork mouse, and then let people freely use their talents in strict proportion to how much money they are allowed to earn.
Every factor that is considered important in people’s daily lives must be measured. Industry, technology, and applied science depend on computing of all kinds, measured by numbers best handled by computers. None of them allow for human idiosyncrasy or ambition.
Man is no longer seen as an image of God, where each person is unique in His eyes.
Quantification has created a fetish for statistics that used to depend on judgment and sensitivity to people’s problems, frustrations, and successes.
The dictatorship of statistics is probably an absolute bureaucratic paradise, but the government is not statistics, but real people.
One of the greatest dangers of our modern society is that it is capable of uniting some very powerful and powerful forces against the freedom of the individual.
Secularization, depersonalization, generalization and computerization between them may well destroy what is left of the individual personality. This should be our starting point when we begin to consider the future of industry, or the future of all our institutions.
If people are not trusted, they can become untrustworthy. If they are not encouraged to be independent, they can easily lose the initiative.
It must begin with the individual and the family as the foundation of society, and we must firmly grasp that all the attributes of our social, religious, political and industrial systems exist for the sole purpose of making life as bearable as possible. and the most civilized for the individual and the family. Only if we start from there will we probably get the right direction.
The very first rule of any system or organization is that it must be compatible with a realistic understanding of human nature, fully encouraging its beneficent qualities and limiting its less remarkable characteristics.
History provides more than enough evidence that cheaters can thrive under any system, and are more likely to do so in a system designed by idealists than a system designed by realists.
It is clear that it is the duty of governments to provide social protection for those who cannot or cannot take care of themselves, but this is no reason to create obstacles for the more fortunate, whose main concern has always been the provision of family, health and the elderly. age, voluntary support of charitable organizations and personal participation in cultural activities.
The whole topic of crime and punishment tends to be ignored by those fortunate enough not to touch it.
Of course, there will always be a hard core of people who cannot be held responsible. This happens in all areas of life.
But this is a clear denial of freedom, allowing any social system to develop in a way that does not make it possible to become a responsible member of society.
If people are not trusted, they can become untrustworthy. If they are not encouraged to be independent, they can easily lose the initiative.
HOW TO FIX OUR BROKEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The whole topic of crime and punishment tends to be ignored by those fortunate enough not to touch it.
Meanwhile, the pressure for reform seems to be focusing on the processes of detection, condemnation, and punishment without considering the environmental factors that encourage crime.
With this avalanche of lawlessness threatening to engulf our civilization, the more discussion about “social control” of crime, the better.
Making rules is good, the next problem is deciding what to do with those who break them. What about those who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed crimes?
The exact goals of punishment have never been completely clear. If you punish a child or animal for doing something wrong, the goal is to remind him not to do it again.
Punishing criminals, on the other hand, can also be used as a deterrent to would-be criminals.
Whatever the theory, it is self-evident that in many cases no sentence is effective either as a punishment, as a deterrent, or as a retribution.
In addition, and this is a very real problem, the perception that criminals are more in need of help and rehabilitation than punishment means that prisons have come to be used both for incarceration and for education and rehabilitation. This duality must create appalling difficulties for both the courts and the prison service, and must be confusing to offenders.
Perhaps the dilemma could be resolved by dividing the sentence into two parts. Firstly, a relatively short term of punishment in humane but strict conditions, and then a longer period of rehabilitation in another institution and in completely different conditions.
After all, civilized standards still depend on how people treat each other.
Social control of crime begins with a warning. After that, we need an effective organization of the search for criminals, a fair system of trial and punishment, and flexible measures to transfer the offender to a law-abiding lifestyle.
It will be an endless task, but I am convinced that we can do it better, especially if we move to a more practical understanding of human nature and the pressures of modern society.
PROPERTY DOES NOT MAKE YOU HAPPY, PEOPLE DO
After all, civilized standards still depend on how people treat each other.
The key to a peaceful, liberal and free society is the behavior of its individual members, regardless of their occupation, level of intelligence and ability.
Ultimately, only individuals can feel satisfaction and contentment. And, as history shows, they cannot be guaranteed either by some patented ideology, or by a political system, or even by material well-being alone.
After all, satisfaction and contentment are created by relationships between one person and another at work, in the community, and at home.
lAdapted from A Matter of Balance by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, published by Michael Russell (Publishing) Ltd.