It has been brought to my attention lately that not everyone has the same moral code. (No, I don't work in rocket science -- why do you ask?)
Even having a religious grounding does not necessitate a moral system based on the heart, rather than the body. There is one story about an atheist. On his way to work every morning, and on his way home every evening, he would stop by the local shrine and kick the altar and religious images there to show his disgust with it. When he died, he went directly to heaven. When he, confused, asked why, he was told, "you came and paid me attention twice a day each day of your life. Even the most pious people rarely show me as much devotion as you have." Regardless of his beliefs, his actions earned him a place in heaven.
My sense of morality, as I have mentioned before, is grounded in my religious beliefs. Motives and thoughts carry as much moral weight as acts; to invent a ludicrous comparison, a man who has no thought of infidelity but sleeps with a woman he has mistaken for his wife (hey, it could happen!) is not as morally culpable as a man who, bent on infidelity, sleeps with his own wife who has disguised herself as a whore, although, on the surface of things, only the first man has committed a misdeed.
Similarly, a bomb aimed at a military target that kills innocent bystanders as an unintended and unfortunate side-effect stands on a different moral plane from a bomb with no other aim than the death of innocent bystanders. (Yes, yes, bombs, being inanimate, don't have moral aims and goals.... you know what I mean.)
In a few conversations I've had over the past while, I have learned that many people have a moral system like that in the atheist story above, based entirely on concrete actions, where motivations and mental states count for nothing. They are the people who see no moral difference in attacks aimed at civilians and those unsuccessful in avoiding all civilians, because the end result -- dead civilians -- is the same. Within my church, they are the people who see no difference between those who support women's ordination because of civil rights (or oppose it because of misogyny) and those who support (or oppose) it because of their interpretation of infallible scripture. They are those who think a doctor like my cousin who could save lives in the ER, but who goes into dermatology instead, is equally as reprehensible if she does it because her true passion lies with acne treatments or she does it because being home every day when her kids get home from school is her top priority as if she does it just for the high pay and nice hours.
Sometimes there are things you wish you hadn't found out about people. That it's all the same to them whether you are actively seeking to hurt them or you are simply misguided in your attempts to be nice to them may be one of those things.
Recent Comments