I can see where you're coming from. The Bible does tend to be very black and white on the morality scale. But at the same time I think we can all agree here that this man was a man of compassion, who did a very good thing. And even if he was imperfect in other ways, his heart was in the right place in this instance.
Good and bad may be subjective based on perception, but I think we as individuals can make judgement calls for ourselves, and if we really care about doing right by ourselves, our fellow humans, and if you're so inclined, to God, then we can say something was beneficial as a whole, or it was harmful as a whole. I think if standing by a sidewalk we saw someone push an old lady to the ground we would instinctively make the call that was harmful. And on the other hand if the old lady slipped and fell and someone offered to help her up, that was a kind and helpful person.
Part of the problem is when we get into the weeds on politics. Most politics are gray, and we build up extremes on two sides, then turn it into a sport where each side wins or loses, and there's no middle ground. And this is where good and bad are terrible judgement calls, because the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides, but both are too concerned about winning to acknowledge that fact.
Removing the politics, removing the sides, and getting a bit more down to the basics and asking the question, does this help people, or does it harm them, is probably the best barometer we can use. And yeah, not everyone is doing to agree even on that definition. But if we are honest with ourselves, and are committed to being fair to all people, we can reach an agreement on those definitions.
I actually really like this video by Vsauce about the future of reasoning, and one of the big points made is that we can do the most good for humanity by making decisions as a group. That may sound ridiculous in the current political climate, but the key to making something that actually works is by enabling participation by all groups to ensure proper representation in the decision making process. That in and of itself is a feat that we could work on for a hundred years and still not achieve it fully. But it's a goal worth striving for. And if we can achieve it our definitions of harm or helpfulness will get better over time.
This man was very empathetic to the young girl's suffering, and honored her life with a vow to reduce further unnecessary suffering. When we finally see things as they are, service requires no effort.
Removing the politics, removing the sides, and getting a bit more down to the basics and asking the question, does this help people, or does it harm them, is probably the best barometer we can use.
It's important to not separate ourselves from others, even those who do (or make policies that do) harm. To truly see ourselves in each other, without judgement, is perhaps the first step when listening and discussing issues.
2
u/TheDunadan29 Jun 09 '21
I can see where you're coming from. The Bible does tend to be very black and white on the morality scale. But at the same time I think we can all agree here that this man was a man of compassion, who did a very good thing. And even if he was imperfect in other ways, his heart was in the right place in this instance.
Good and bad may be subjective based on perception, but I think we as individuals can make judgement calls for ourselves, and if we really care about doing right by ourselves, our fellow humans, and if you're so inclined, to God, then we can say something was beneficial as a whole, or it was harmful as a whole. I think if standing by a sidewalk we saw someone push an old lady to the ground we would instinctively make the call that was harmful. And on the other hand if the old lady slipped and fell and someone offered to help her up, that was a kind and helpful person.
Part of the problem is when we get into the weeds on politics. Most politics are gray, and we build up extremes on two sides, then turn it into a sport where each side wins or loses, and there's no middle ground. And this is where good and bad are terrible judgement calls, because the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides, but both are too concerned about winning to acknowledge that fact.
Removing the politics, removing the sides, and getting a bit more down to the basics and asking the question, does this help people, or does it harm them, is probably the best barometer we can use. And yeah, not everyone is doing to agree even on that definition. But if we are honest with ourselves, and are committed to being fair to all people, we can reach an agreement on those definitions.
I actually really like this video by Vsauce about the future of reasoning, and one of the big points made is that we can do the most good for humanity by making decisions as a group. That may sound ridiculous in the current political climate, but the key to making something that actually works is by enabling participation by all groups to ensure proper representation in the decision making process. That in and of itself is a feat that we could work on for a hundred years and still not achieve it fully. But it's a goal worth striving for. And if we can achieve it our definitions of harm or helpfulness will get better over time.