Playing God...
Do I have the right to run another person's life? Or till him/her/it how to runs his/her/its life?
Or the lives of a group of people?
Of a community?
Of a race?
Do I have the right to uphold the survival of the species?
At the cost of individuals...
These and other related questions popped up yesterday, when a friend and I were talking to a person who had hurt us. I found myself talking about having a moral code. I discovered that the only real thing i wanted from this person was that he/she/it have a value system and that he/she/it stick by it. I was saying that it really didnt matter to me whether a person chose good or bad, as long as he/she/it was aware of the act itself and its consequences.
But was my stance sensible? Was it appropriate? was it acceptable?
The question is a tricky one. Even if it doesn't look like it... Consider this. Would you be impartial between the fire and the fire-fighter? Would you be equally accomodative of a saint and a serial-killer? Of course you wouldn't. You would try to stop the serial-killer; you would try to stop the fire. If you couldn't persude the killer to give up his violent ways, you would try to force him to stop or put a deterrent in his path. Why? It is a moral judgement, right? And it is the RIGHT thing to do, isnt it? Why then, is it so unacceptable that I extend this idea to helping humanity? God makes moral judgements too, doesnt He/She?
Do I sit back and and let soemone glide down a path that I'm sure will lead to depravity or worse? Or do I 'play god'? If someone hurts me, do I try to change the way the person is, so that he/she is a better human being? Or do I just try to prevent the person from harming me again?
What do I do?
Or the lives of a group of people?
Of a community?
Of a race?
Do I have the right to uphold the survival of the species?
At the cost of individuals...
These and other related questions popped up yesterday, when a friend and I were talking to a person who had hurt us. I found myself talking about having a moral code. I discovered that the only real thing i wanted from this person was that he/she/it have a value system and that he/she/it stick by it. I was saying that it really didnt matter to me whether a person chose good or bad, as long as he/she/it was aware of the act itself and its consequences.
But was my stance sensible? Was it appropriate? was it acceptable?
The question is a tricky one. Even if it doesn't look like it... Consider this. Would you be impartial between the fire and the fire-fighter? Would you be equally accomodative of a saint and a serial-killer? Of course you wouldn't. You would try to stop the serial-killer; you would try to stop the fire. If you couldn't persude the killer to give up his violent ways, you would try to force him to stop or put a deterrent in his path. Why? It is a moral judgement, right? And it is the RIGHT thing to do, isnt it? Why then, is it so unacceptable that I extend this idea to helping humanity? God makes moral judgements too, doesnt He/She?
Do I sit back and and let soemone glide down a path that I'm sure will lead to depravity or worse? Or do I 'play god'? If someone hurts me, do I try to change the way the person is, so that he/she is a better human being? Or do I just try to prevent the person from harming me again?
What do I do?
I am become death, the destroyer of the worlds.- Oppie
posted by Sriharsha Salagrama at
2:24 am
2 Comments:
"oppie" huh?
*grin*
thinking aloud:
one of the things that set a teacher/ mentor apart from the typical frothing-at-the-mouth-missionary (or random do-gooder), is the ability to acknowledge and understand that each person is unique. that sounds singularly trite. :D but it also encompasses the understanding that each person has a different code. a code based on their sense of right and wrong, which would depend on their degree of consciousness and awareness.
so rather than brute force them into accepting the result/conclusion (in this instance the code of the teacher) the purpose should be to facilitate learning and awareness (and here, the forming of a personal moral code).
each person deals with different elements in their lives, and codes to live by will probably be centered on the primary issues, needs and challenges of that individuals life and personality.
as much as anything else that is worthwhile (if not more so) a moral code is not a one-size-fits-all affair. and also, any moral code that seeks to instill a parasitic dependence in others on the person propounding the code, is obviously unhealthy and warped.
"live and let live" is not a passive act, its a conscious deliberate act of judgement :)
:) you could say I was being oppie-mystic!
But I'm not very convinced about the argument against imposing one's moral code on another person. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense vis-a-vis 'free will', but it limits any form of reform by placing upon the reformer the need to necessarily work only on another person's unwillingness/inability to maintain a degree of conformity to his/her/its moral code.
Is one assuming that all people are inherently good and any differences of opinions are caused merely by differences in actions, not differences in axioms?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home