Is it really necessary to distinguish between good and evil based on some apriori, learned experience? In a book by Malcolm Gladwell David and Goliath I read about two pairs of parents whose child was murdered. The first pair took a very rough revenge and forced the governement to pass a bill which punishes a third offence, which may be light or severe, by a lifelong imprisonment.at first it worked but ultimately they found out that chronic criminals do not think logically about the consequences of their crimes and thus this system does not work for them. These parents only satisfied their ego desire for revenge. The other pair chose a different path. They wanted to meet the murderer, ask why did he do that and try to find a way how to help these people. They did not wanted a revenge because revenge on anyone who cannot defend is meaningless even for ego. Our ego desire to revenge, the rage we have within ourselves can be satisfied only when the victim defends itself. it is not necessary to know what to do if i follow my conscience and instead of pursuing those who hurt it is better to help them. Instead of the tough rule, if i follow the rule of love, then i can be sure that i do a good thing. it is not possible to hate completely,only love can be complete. Hate is misunderstsnding and envy,but only of particularities,not of the entire person. If one hates the person entirely then only wants to vindicate the revenge one wants to commit. The parents did not know any facts about the three offence rule and followed it until they empirically found out that it does not work. The other pair did not know anything as well but followed their heart, did not wanted to revenge and ultimately empirical evidence showed that they were right. Here we see that in many cases it is not necessary to really see any empirical evidence about what is right and wrong but it is very often necessary to not follow ones ego but rather ones heart.
Poslané z Fast notepad