If the point is none of these, then what IS the point?
One of my major points was that actions follow beliefs, and that the consequences of actions are not equal in the amount of pleasure or pain they inflict or engender.
The link to the Christian killings was only an example of the point. To be fair, the point could have been demonstrated with links to Hitler, to the Huns, or to a million others. The example is secondary to the principle.
Now, in terms of MT: I do not know the effect her actions had upon her own balance of joy and despair; nor, do I consider it very relevant. Her power affected millions and millions. It is the action or inaction that resulted from her beliefs, and the impact they had on these millions of others in terms of consequences--it is this that I address.
She had a very extreme belief system. I think most of us can agree on that. Leaving aside whether it was good for her, or her future as the 31 millionth bride of Christ...what was the utilitarian consequences of her actions and inactions?
It is one thing when people's actions have a negligible impact on the lives of others. Certainly, our concern for the larger community does not justify spending an inordinate amount of time on such a point. However, when they had an extreme belief system that was essentially imposed by a slurry of propaganda stirred into human need and suffering--it behooves us to consider whether the consequences were or were not salutary for these MILLIONS. The fact that her actions may have helped herself and certain dictators and criminals, as well as the Catholic Church is irrelevant to my point. If we can detremine that her beliefs/actions caused a great deal of harm, then we ought to be prepared to place law and justice ahead of someone's vows, the next time this occurs.
CYA later. Gotta work... |
