But do we? Or do we want to create a better world for ourselves? Maybe that's the difference between societally accepted 'good' and 'bad.' If a person attempts to create a better world for himself, he is deemed bad, setting aside the needs of his community and humanity at large for his own selfish wants. But if he tries to create a better world for a group of people or for the whole of humanity, he is considered good. The mass of society decides depending on whether or not the attempts of that person is beneficial to all of them, and the answer to that question determines the morality of that person.
Alternatively, it might be more individual. What you are doing does not advance my life in a any way, and thus it is bad. It becomes even worse if you dare to impede my attempts to make my life better. However, if what you are doing makes me happy or helps me progress, then it is good.
Two men are competing for a job. One thinks outside the box and uses unconventional methods to win the job, the other goes the traditional route. To the second man, the first is bad. To the first, the second is merely and obstacle to get around, maybe considered bad because he is a roadblock on his way to success. To society, the first is innovative. He may be bad because he is undermining accepted methods and thus giving himself more of an advantage over the second. The second is good, the underdog.
The the difference between good or bad was communally decided, the first would be slightly less moral than the second, but neither would be wholly bad because the decision will not directly affect society (in a normal job), and thus society wouldn't have enough to care about to make such a decision.
However, as a general rule, we as people tend to root for the underdog. Why is that? It may very well be because we feel that everyone deserves an equal chance at whatever it is they want, and so we support those who started out with less. Basketball team 1 is in a losing streak, team 2 has a winning record. Putting team allegiances aside, people will cheer for team 1, hoping that their support will bring them up to team 2's level, creating an equal playing field.
Why is it that humanity wants all situations to be equal? Are we all just inherently bleeding hearts? We all feel compassion for everybody, and everybody deserves to get what they need, despite who they are and what they do? Despite their label of good or bad?
Or is it because we feel wronged in some way? Every person feels that he did not get what he had coming to him at some point in his life, and thus empathizes with the underdog. I didn't get that job offer, so I understand what it is to be lesser, and therefore I empathize with team 1.
And what about those who support team 2? It might be because they have some primal want to be the winner, and the obvious way to do so is to line themselves up with the team that will most likely win. In the previous situation, where a person feels wronged by life, they may want to right that wrong. They can make up for their lack of what they feel they deserve by aligning themselves with team 2. Therefore they receive the satisfaction of knowing they picked the winning team, and it makes up for losing the earlier opportunity.
That style of thought wants to create better world for themselves. They either don't even consider or don't care about the inequality between the teams. Their better world is only for them. For them it would be more beneficial to advance themselves than to advance society as a whole. Maybe it's true. A person can make a tangible difference to themselves more than they can change the world. Maybe trying to change the entire world takes too much effort for too much disappointment. It's near impossible in the world we live in to make a name for ourselves, to change societal norms and make the world better. So why not spend the resources and time we have putting efforts towards making our own lives better?
On the other hand, the above seems selfish. If we have the time and resources, we should put them towards helping everyone together. Someone might need the help more than I do, and I should get them to my own level and form there advance together as a community.
In Israel right now, there are bombs falling all over the south. Sderot, Beer Sheva, all places we are going to next week. Of course, I see this as bad. It is harming the world I live in and is doing nothing to make changes for the better. But Hamas thinks the act is good. It really is bettering their own community. We are both thinking from a individualistic point of view, voting for team 2. I want them to stop, which would make my life and my community better but not theirs, and they want to bomb us away, which would obviously harm us and help them. At this level, neither of us are thinking from a communal point of view. However, in a broader view, Hamas seems bad for harming human life (you could argue that Israel is doing the same, but for the sake of this argument, let's look at the situation in the simple viewpoint). At this level, everyone believes Hamas is bad. We all want the same thing. We all vote for team 1 here.
So which is better, supporting team 1 or team 2? Assuming your support made a difference, which is morally right? Which is better?
Technically, they're both better. One is better for the individual or for a specific community, and the other is better for humanity as a whole.
But when we ask for an answer as to which should we choose, we run into a paradox. If somebody else asks me which they should choose, I would advise them to act for the community. Because this benefits me, meaning I am choosing to act for myself. I could advise that person to act only for them, but that wouldn't help me or anybody at all. But telling them to act for everyone is really just me acting for myself.
So is either good or bad? How can we put such definite titles on such infinite concepts? How can anyone judge the actions of another? Anything that doesn't benefit yourself specifically could be considered bad, but anything that you do for yourself, you do because you believe it is good for you in some way.
Does this mean there are no absolute truths when it comes to actions? Putting aside the term Absolute Truth as it applies to beliefs in a deity, deities, religion, the universe, etc, it simply cannot be used for morals. A common example people use is that murder is wrong. But if the option is between killing one person and that person killing multiple others, then that absolute truth is wrong. If there is a serial killer-rapist, a little girl, and one gun, most people would advocate for the girl using to gun to escape the murderer-rapist rather than the murderer-rapist using the gun on the girl, and then subsequently on many other girls. The best-case scenario is the girl using the gun to escape without killing the man, but it might not be possible. Thus forcing one to commit a murder, which is universally accepted as wrong. However, it has to be done, so it is wrong. Therefore there is no right or wrong. If something wrong has to be done, it should be done in the most moral way possible? But according to who's morals? A very male-dominated society might value the murderer-rapist over the girl, whereas the majority of societies today would value the girl over him. If the whole of humanity acted this way, it would essentially be a democracy, which most of us in western/majority society accepts as good. The problem occurs when you consider the values of the minority. If the whole of society accepts and integrates the views of the majority, then they are voting for team 2 and ignoring the minority, the underdog. Thus democracy is thinking individualistically, which is not good for society as a whole. But accepting and integrating the morals and values of the minority would anger the majority. Choosing either team 1 or team 2 would not make logical or moral sense here.
Basically, choosing team 1 or team 2 is wrong and right. There is no such thing as wrong or right, good or bad. There is no way to lead a moral life, because your morals may impede the morals of others.
So how should we live our lives, how do we create a better world? The answer depends on who you ask. You can't ask yourself. You can't ask me You can't ask anyone else. We're all too biased. Every single decision we make is wrong, but there is no wrong. There is no right. Thus every decision we make. Everything we are, everything that exists just is.
No comments:
Post a Comment