..with a word. How could have Jesus Christ known what is good and what is bad? Words. Words can be either descriptive or prescriptive. The former option is not absolute and depends on the amount of knowledge about the subject, whereas the latter is absolute and with a sufficient amount of words in debate we can conclude what is right and what is wrong – the difference between good and evil. Jesus, except being God, used words in order to show us what we already know – what is good and what is bad. Words are relative, of course, but to undestand words – to what they direct, if it is distinguishing between Good and Bad, then by the lead of our conscience we can be sure that we know which behaviour is good and which is bad. I do not think that one has to learn that crimes are not good – be it any crime. Even the psychopaths who do evil because of their lack of emotional response and cause damage to their victims know that their acts are evil and immoral, yet they do not want to refrain from doing such things-that does not mean that they cannot, once one understands or has the capability of understanding, he will be hold responsible for his acts. Humans have conscience, animals do not. Via the usage of words, we can conclude what we already know what is right. It is not inventing which are good and bad things, it is discovering what is hidden beneath the layer of superficial brilliance of today´s world. I think that everyone with a clear conscience would agree that doing good is the highest human virtue and basically the most and only important thing in the life on any human. Such that no other living creature is capable of. Doing good just for good´s sake, not thinking about the consequence and gains that I will consequently get. Doing good can however have many shapes and forms. This is where we delve deeper into the problematics of morality. For someone one thing is moral and one immoral. Many things differ with perspective, view, opionion, knowledge and experience. Not morality. One does not need any experience or knowledge to know what is right and wrong. Of course, when I hurt someone for the first time, I see that it is evil and I do not do it for the secondth time, but I do not need anybody to tell me that it is a bad thing to do – hurting others. Opinion changes with experience, the one who is more experienced can improve ours, but it cannot change with what purpose one does everything – good or bad intentions. The change cannot come from outside-it can only come from the inner of human. Words can help us find what we have within us and maybe what we have burried somewhere deep inside our souls. A concerete situation does not have and absolute moral answer to what is good and what is a bad choice, this varies with experience and knowledge. Nevertheless, hypothetically we can conclude what is right and what is wrong.
I like to present a moral choice of the well-known Sophia. How should one choose between saving of one´s children-one or the other? The answer may sound cruel, but it would be choosing none of the children. Deciding among two – both evil choices resuls in less evil than the death of both, but it still is evil. The only morally sound answer would be not choosing. The voluntary death of the children would have a great value. There is nothing better than dying for a moral cause. In reality I would also weigh pragmatically and would choose one child, but it would not be the best option. It is reasonable to choose the younger/stronger etc. depending on my opinion, but imagine the surviving child thinking about his parent´s choice. Would not want one rather die, than put somone into such a predicament of deciding between two same-value lifes? As a child I would rather die than force the parent to make such a choice. Choice is what distinguishes us from other living beings, we all have a choice. The highest choice being of course voluntary death for what I believe is right. If the guard said that without choosing the child, he would kill all three of us-such a death would be the most virtuous one can die of.
I read somewhere another moral dilemma-a pregnant woman gets stuck in an entrance to a cave and the people in the cave cannot get out and will die in a few hourse before of influx. Is it morally acceptable to blow the woman up with a dynamite (this being the only option offered) rather than letting the people inside die? Again, we have to distinguish between a voluntary death of giving up trying and a voluntary death of clear conscience – determining that there is not another way than killing the pregnant woman in order to save others and thus it is morally better for us to die than do the “little” evil of killing one person in order to save others, because the death of others would mean a “greater” evil than killing one person. I do not believe in little evil. Not even a little bit. Not even the smallest evil. Evil is always evil. Once I deplete all other options then the only one is to die in order to not do any small evil. I often ask whoat would Jesus do? Would he kill an innocent person in order to save others? The result would of course be the death of all people in the cave, instead of just a one.
As a social care worker I often deal with a dilemma of letting or not letting people with mental illness hurt themselves – this depends on opinion. One can stop someone from hurting himself by using a straitjacket or one can let him hurt himself because free choice is the most important asset of humans. Both options can be morally justified if are done with the intention of helping those people. Which option is better depends then on experience. Debate about morality (one absolute choice- the best as proposed above) should not be mixed with the debate about the treatment of people with mental illnesses because this depends on knowledge about the problematics of mental disorders.