There is general agreement that true religion or ethics or whatever you want to call it is not just what you say, or say you believe. It’s what you do. Belief is behavior. Because what you do shows what you really believe, whereas we can talk ourselves around anything. I often do.
Now comes another idea that may not be as agreeable to some: true religion is not just what you do, it’s the impact of what you do. For instance, I may do what everyone agrees is the right thing (of course, there’s nothing everyone agrees on), but if the result of that acclaimed right action is violence, I’ve probably acted wrongly.
In other words, when you act on principle and principle alone, without weighing the impact of that action, you have not acted ethically.
I think there’s a dynamic continuum that can be described here. On the one extreme is the totally principled act, which evolves into legalism. And on the other end is a totally contextual act, which evolves into lawlessness. We live, work, play, eat, breath and sleep on this continuum. And, in my opinion, the one sure way to act unethically is to live on either end of the continuum because, whichever end you choose, you’re not honestly taking responsibility for the impact of your behavior in real life and on real people.
It’s not just what you believe or say you believe, it’s what you do. And it’s not just what you do, it taking responsibility for the on-the-ground, real-life impact of what you do that makes you an ethical person.
What’s he talking about?!
It comes down to this: act purely and solely on principles, principles of any kind, and your principles become inhumane and need reexamination.
Heavy duty, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment