The obligations that we have are obligations to ourselves. No one else is obliged to do or give you anything. This concept seems to be lost upon a great deal of people. Our actions and reactions are a result of our own conscience. In reality it can be no other way. Proper behaviors can not be forced. True, you can be made to submit or to comply, but you can not be forced to embrace the action. Outward actions do not necessarily reflect inward feelings. Behavior is only proper if you truly believe it to be so. Reciprocity should not be the motivator for doing what is right, doing right for the sake of your own conscience is the only path to happiness and fulfillment. Doing anything else is self defeating and without purpose. That is why we feel we have been wronged in some fashion. We have, we have failed ourselves. We have failed to meet our own obligations.
It would seem to me that are some that have somehow fooled even themselves into this, you owe me, mindset. The best one should hope for is an equitable exchange. I hope that my fellow man will treat me with fairness. The behaviors,reactions and actions we expect from others are based upon on own standards, not theirs. We have to remember that in every exchange. When they fail to meet our expectations that doesn't mean they should be held to account. You can not hold someones else to your standard. It is their conscience that they must satisfy, not yours. No matter how indignant you may feel, it will not change them.
The way in which we treat each other is dependent upon our conscience. We try to write laws to prevent abuses. I have often said so, and will again, you cannot legislate morality. You may pass legislation that approves of " immoral " behavior however. But that legislation is only valid to those that choose it. That is to say, the law does not exonerate my conscience, If I believe it to be immoral in some fashion, it remains immoral. I also don't feel as though you can pass laws to make your citizens more " moral. " Take the idea that because you are wealthy you should have to give more. Certainly an action a moral person might consider, but should they choose not to, it is their conscience. Just because you are poor doesn't change that. They owe you nothing. The old folks would say, " charity begins at home. " Isn't that what I am also saying ? The obligations we have are obligations to ourselves. A failure on our part ( to meet those obligations ) does not mean that someone else should extend that charity. Perhaps it is that we have forgotten just what charity means. Charity is giving. But it is not just the act of giving away some material thing, it is much greater than that.Charity is also acting within our conscience. To be charitable to others is to accept them, despite whatever faults you may perceive them to have. Charity has been defined as love. Can love be legislated ? I don't think so.
The problem lies in the collective conscience of a society. Even a society that has loosely established standards of behavior and morality will be more stable than one that does not. That is what each generation faces, a slight change in conscience. It may be disturbing to the elder members of that society. Some changes in social conscience may go almost unnoticed. I question the collective conscience in America today. Is it any where close to what it was two hundred years ago ? The answer is an emphatic, no. Should it be ? No is also the response I would give. The true answer to that question lies with one person, you. Just as your individual conscience guides your actions so does the collective conscience guide the society. Something to think about.Our current President ran on a platform of " change. " I agree, things need to change. A change in social conscience is required to provide more stability. You can not achieve that result through legislation only through charity. Charity is an individual response.
It would seem to me that are some that have somehow fooled even themselves into this, you owe me, mindset. The best one should hope for is an equitable exchange. I hope that my fellow man will treat me with fairness. The behaviors,reactions and actions we expect from others are based upon on own standards, not theirs. We have to remember that in every exchange. When they fail to meet our expectations that doesn't mean they should be held to account. You can not hold someones else to your standard. It is their conscience that they must satisfy, not yours. No matter how indignant you may feel, it will not change them.
The way in which we treat each other is dependent upon our conscience. We try to write laws to prevent abuses. I have often said so, and will again, you cannot legislate morality. You may pass legislation that approves of " immoral " behavior however. But that legislation is only valid to those that choose it. That is to say, the law does not exonerate my conscience, If I believe it to be immoral in some fashion, it remains immoral. I also don't feel as though you can pass laws to make your citizens more " moral. " Take the idea that because you are wealthy you should have to give more. Certainly an action a moral person might consider, but should they choose not to, it is their conscience. Just because you are poor doesn't change that. They owe you nothing. The old folks would say, " charity begins at home. " Isn't that what I am also saying ? The obligations we have are obligations to ourselves. A failure on our part ( to meet those obligations ) does not mean that someone else should extend that charity. Perhaps it is that we have forgotten just what charity means. Charity is giving. But it is not just the act of giving away some material thing, it is much greater than that.Charity is also acting within our conscience. To be charitable to others is to accept them, despite whatever faults you may perceive them to have. Charity has been defined as love. Can love be legislated ? I don't think so.
The problem lies in the collective conscience of a society. Even a society that has loosely established standards of behavior and morality will be more stable than one that does not. That is what each generation faces, a slight change in conscience. It may be disturbing to the elder members of that society. Some changes in social conscience may go almost unnoticed. I question the collective conscience in America today. Is it any where close to what it was two hundred years ago ? The answer is an emphatic, no. Should it be ? No is also the response I would give. The true answer to that question lies with one person, you. Just as your individual conscience guides your actions so does the collective conscience guide the society. Something to think about.Our current President ran on a platform of " change. " I agree, things need to change. A change in social conscience is required to provide more stability. You can not achieve that result through legislation only through charity. Charity is an individual response.
No comments:
Post a Comment