When a person kills another for no apparent reason, or unacceptable reason in social judgment, it seems clear that she acted poorly. But if that same person kills thousands of "enemies" will be consecrated and honored for outstanding services rendered to the country.
If an impoverished man steals to survive, he did something wrong. When, however, the driver of the economic policy of a country achieves excellent results, engendering poverty in other countries, he is highly praised.
In general, human groups set rules to define good and evil, these rules are arising from the way of being, thinking and acting of this group, ie, from its culture, from the point of view of anthropology.
Thus, when an Eskimo kills his aged father, with the justification that it should not become too weakened because it would harm the eternal life, he did well, according to the thinking of these people, who, for reasons of survival, not can keep unproductive people.
When the family authorizes to be disconnected the apparatus that keeps alive, suffering, a loved one, with no prospect of recovery, this can be accepted as a charitable and justifiable act, but will be condemned for religious reasons.
It seems clear that we must accept that good and evil are relative concepts rather than absolute. And are relative, because they depend on point of view, i.e., from the view point.
When the family authorizes to be disconnected the apparatus that keeps alive, suffering, a loved one, with no prospect of recovery, this can be accepted as a charitable and justifiable act, but will be condemned for religious reasons.
It seems clear that we must accept that good and evil are relative concepts rather than absolute. And are relative, because they depend on point of view, i.e., from the view point.
No comments:
Post a Comment