Oh, Greg. How can I make this as clear to you as the clay sloughing out between your fingers? Let me try.
The fundamental first premise of moral consideration is the shared desire of people to avoid pain. "Don't hurt me" is the cry of the child, no less than it is the cry of the adult. "Don't hurt me. Do not cause me harm."
The first question which a reasonable and empathic person asks when he or she is considering the moral value of an action is, "Will this action have consequences that are hurtful to another?"
Do you think those ministers asked such questions before they harmed the children? Do you think they used reason and empathy as a guide to their behaviour? I would suggest to you that they were deficient in both those qualities.
Did they consider whether the use of force--the act of violation, mistreatment, and abuse--was a reasoned and caring position.? I say, "NO." Surely, if they had cared enough to think, they would have realized that a child cannot give informed consent--never mind the irrationality of consenting to be harmed.
The fact that they WERE Ministers suggests to me this: that what they might have rationalized in their twisted minds--probably took a form similar to this: "I am expressing the love of God. It SURELY feels good, and it SURELY feels like LOVE." Or to put it another way: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." - Groucho Marx --
Whenever we allow ourselves to imagine or make up the Good, while bypassing reason and feeling--we become capable of harming others. Life is complex. To ensure moral acts through rules, we would need an infinite number of rules. Well, we don't have that. The alternative is to think and to feel. When reason and compassion are our guides, we have a situation described by Bakunin: "Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."
A few days back, Brees had presented a list of nine do's and don't's. Karen whittled those down to three. I would have cut it back to one word, "AHIMSA." Neocon had properly brought up the distinction between avoiding harm and actively promoting the good.
Now, while the path between morality and nobility may be properly examined, it is well for one to keep in mind the words of Creighton: "No people do so much harm as those who go about doing good." Or the words of Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Those on the path of nobility (of course)--they have no need for rules.
Now getting back to the topic of harming children. The owner of the island said, "You know when you are being hurt, don't you?"
Go with that, Greg. The last voice heard between a man and his act, is his own. If you listen to reason, and to your compassion--you will not need to handcuff yourself to the bedpost for fear of riffling through your own pockets while you sleep.
Well, I better get back to work...
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
- Winston Churchill |
