Well my take on it is that as humans we got too clever for ourselves and now we think we can do anything we like - hence the "original sin" story of eating from the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.
Being good is about not just doing whatever we like - sure, we can curb our excesses for pragmatic motives - so that we don't destroy the planet we live on - we can do it all for ourselves, or even for future generations - for our own offspring, but that isn't as good as doing it for the sake of the animals themselves or the plants themselves or the planet itself, irrespective of whether or not we, our families or humanity continues. Now that would be genuine altruism and that would be genuine goodness - being others-orientated instead of self-orientated. That's how we make the best of that extra knowledge we acquired. If we fail to do that, we are being sinful in a way that other creatures are not.
If we know and understand the negative impact of our actions and overindulge our desires anyway, just because we are powerful enough to do so, then that's sin. If we consciously choose not to learn what the consequences of our actions are, then that's sin, too.
Responsible use of your free will.
Weigh up the pros and cons of a situation. Measure the benefit against the cost. If the pros outweigh the cons, then it's OK, right? Sound easy?
Now you have to ask yourself - what are the pros and cons for whom? Not just for yourself, that's for sure.
The reason many religions have specific rules - the reason they don't make it that easy - the reason they don't just leave it all down to us as individuals - is because they recognise that we are incapable of judging any situation from all possible angles. That would take an omniscient mind, and only God has one of those.
We should always do our best, but we are really going to need some guidance too - some rules. Not killing, lying, coveting or stealing for example. Loving your neighbour as you love yourself. Doing for others the things you'd like them to do for you, and not doing to others what you'd rather they didn't do to you. Knowing what we do and don't like to happen to us can give us insights into what to do and what not to do to others - it can give us the gift of empathy. We do also need to bear in mind though that we were not all created identically, so just because you'd rather someone told you the cold, hard truth for your own good doesn't mean someone else is going to appreciate it. Bear in mind when your advice might fall on stubborn ears and thereby prove counter-productive. Sure you could argue that the choices that other person makes is down to them, and that's true, but if you sincerely want them to take your advice for their own sake, you might have to approach the subject with awareness of and sensitivity to the likely outcomes of your various possible approaches. We need to endeavour to develop a fairly reliable intelligent, adaptable, compassionate conscience for eventualities such as these, knowing that we'll still get it wrong sometimes.
Rewards?
We should aim to be as benevolent as possible, causing no unnecessary death, harm or suffering. We should ideally be benevolent without being motivated by the idea of any kind of reward in this world or any other, but simply because benevolence makes the world a better place. If we seek to make our actions benevolent for the sake of rewards, we will always stop short. We'll always decide that we've already done enough when the going gets tough.
Don't just compare the potential gains and losses of a situation with regard to your own life, consider the benefits or losses for your whole family. Better still, for your country. Better still, for your species. Better still for life in general. Better still, for your planet. Better still, for the entire universe. Only then are you asking, "what are the benefits and losses for God?"
Cause and effect.
Consider something that many would think of as fairly harmless - placing a small bet. Now if you win, that may seem fine, but how many people had to lose so that you could win? For you to come away with more than you started, that is at the expense of all the gamblers who lost (not to mention all the trees that had to die to make the tickets). As gambling is an industry that makes vast profits, it is easy to calculate that the number of people who gain is small when compared to the large number of people who lose, even in the case of semi-charitable institutions like the National Lottery.
And before you say "well the same criticism could be made of the stock exchange or almost any form of free enterprise", I am quite happy to say that the same rule should apply there too. (It could be argued though that gambling is even worse because here in the UK, since 2001, winnings are tax free.) People may wish to have double standards, but I think we should aim to be morally consistent and I certainly do consider a society based on consumer choice, big business and free enterprise to be immoral. Freedom to indulge desire should not be the arbiter of right and wrong in any society. If it is, then that is a sinful society.
No comments:
Post a Comment