On "The Greater Good" -- A Twisted Morality Across Religions (Subcategory Directory On Twisted Morality)
Updated: Nov 26
(The Subcategory: How Being Good "Shot" Me "In the Foot"
Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co.
The article "On 'The Greater Good' -- A Twisted Morality Across Religions" is a thought-provoking exploration of the concept of the greater good across different religious philosophies. It challenges readers to question widely accepted notions and consider the moral complexities involved in attributing events to a greater purpose.
The piece incorporates perspectives from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, providing a broad understanding of how various faiths interpret the concept. The engaging writing style makes complex philosophical and theological ideas more understandable, with rhetorical questions, analogies, and examples.
The article also critiques faith's role in shaping our understanding of the greater good, questioning the rationality of faith-based beliefs and encouraging readers to reflect on practical implications.
Overall, the article offers a compelling and thought-provoking read that challenges readers to critically examine the concept of the greater good from multiple religious and philosophical perspectives.
Part I: Unavoidable Events and Logic
Is it rational to believe that every event, since the dawn of mankind, has been made for its greater good? Technically, generalizations fall flat when there are one or more exceptions to their rule. Therefore, to generalize is almost always to be inaccurate. Hence there's not much point generalizing in the absence of omniscience. After all, the idea that "the greater good" is always in mind, even in the divine sense, could be reasonably doubted.
The wars, the massacres, the holocausts, and the genocides, the abuse, the various traumas inflicted on us by others -- can we truly say that all of these were eventually made for the greater good of humanity, either collectively or individually?
In Judaism, there is the concept of "Ha'kol Le'tova", which means "everything is for the greater good". According to this concept, even the most unfortunate of happenings were, are, and will eventually be for the good of mankind and/or for its betterment. Judaism presents the ethical dimension as part of this multi-layered existence as something concrete that exists outside our own minds.
Furthermore, like in many other religious philosophies/ideologies, the divine is regarded as the highest good.
It is seen so in Christianity, as "the highest good out of which all other good flows."
In Islam, Allah is considered the greatest of planners and ethically "The source of infinite justice".
And in Judaism, again, the divine is told to have created evil just so we could get the free will to decide between good and evil, light and dark.
Part II: Functionality of Faith in The Greater Good
What binds many followers in religious teachings is not only the sense of social harmony fostered in many religious communities. Many religions are based on faith. Faith is also valuable in many other fields of human activity. For example, having faith in your potential, faith that you won't fail, faith in the loyalty of your loved one, and so on.
When nothing else works, faith will do. -- The MorningCoach Blog
And yet, faith can be either strengthened or weakened by reflecting on the past, and seeing if our faith really holds any water about what it argues. You might be surprised to understand that "greater good", at the very least, depends upon us, the "earthly" beings. Both collectively, and personally.
If everything is cosmically designed for the greater good, horrible events such as WWII and the killings of less-than-known ethnic groups can all be considered "good" for the long term, even if, in the short term, they were horrible.
Was the genocide of the Tasmanians for the greater good?
Conversely, those who carry out acts of mass deaths, from the colonial empires of old to mass shooters -- do they represent a divine calling?
If free will exists to some extent, then no, as we're allowed to choose between the growth of life, and its destruction.
A divine being that created and governs the universe out of infinite good and justice, will not order people to commit murder.
If the Abrahamic religions represent universal divine truth, and not other, more-esoteric religions, then a supremely-good divine being would surely support his own Ten Commandments. "Don't Murder", is one of them.
The Eerie Equality
The counter-argument could be made that the "greater good" is defined by our freedom of choice. It isn't defined necessarily by the prospect that a more rectified reality will come forth. And, it isn't defined necessarily by concepts such as salvation and redemption. It could rather be defined by the relief of being granted this divine, universal right to do as we please, whether or not we'll be greatly rewarded or punished for our misdeeds.
A higher deity, decreeing that everything is for the greater good, is also to automatically accept determinism, the belief that everything is designed and planned before our very existence. As paradoxical as it sounds, freedom can exist within the framework of a deterministic universe. In a universe determined to be good by default, the "greatest good" could be simply defined as our right to exert our free will in a way we see fit. This somewhat aligns with Taoism, linking authenticity with harmony, and letting go as another key for being in harmony with reality.
In other words, the "greater good" of one succumbing to drug barony, is equally "greatly good" to our ability to accept human injustice, and live either way.
So, as much as we're allowed to commit terrible atrocities, we're also allowed to improve our wellbeing by choosing to remain apathetic. And remember: As much as caring for humanity is morally good, it can also deprive us of our own happiness. It is "greatly good" to care for other human beings as it is "greatly good" to care for our own health, rather than towards a world we're powerless to absolutely revolutionize with our combined potential.
Part III: Questioning Perfection and Freedom
The Paradise Paradox declares that paradise would be hellish for humans because humans are not designed to live in a perfect/flawless reality. Virtual simulations reveal how humans suffer when they have no objectives left to do.
"This is one thing I have never understood. To me I find sandbox mode boring. I like the idea of starting of a park/zoo/city with some money and trying to make it the best I can. I never have found enjoyment in getting everything handed to me. What is the appeal of it?" -- "Andrew2018"
The problem of an utopian reality where you can do anything you want, lies in the lack of struggle to work towards your idea of "the greater good".
Thus, if the greater good stems from free will exclusively, then nothing truly matters beyond it in comparison. All the actions we do, all the actions we don't do; I am not sure why would free will be made primary and what else follows suit, as secondary. Can we justify anything under the reason of free will What if we kill, or declare war? Not only will it not matter, it will also not change the fact that each and every one of our "planned" actions is for the greater good (whatever the "greater good" means otherwise).
Can we really expect the free will of a school shooter to be of the same "greater good" as the "greater good" of Gandhi?
Intermission: Human Ignorance
It is difficult, at least for me, to accept this belief, no matter how infinitely wise a higher deity is than I am. Such planning seems to be very flawed. Is it for the greater good to lead innocent lives to premature death, over something that could've been attained through another solution? Is it for the greater good to inflict pain and trauma on those who don't deserve it?
Yet, I guess that, as long as I lack the so-called infinite wisdom of God/s, who am I to judge?
Highlighting Freedom
Whether or not there is a cosmic designer and judge, it is difficult to say that their actions are just, when countless lives were allowed by the free will of others to become utterly expendable and irrelevant. What is the point of punishing "sinners" when their actions could've been prevented by the all-powerful and wise designer?
Wouldn't that however override the idea that the greater good could really reside in our ability to choose good over evil? And yet, we're allowed to be evil, as part of this "greater good".
Research has revealed this quote:
We are in nature, but not a part of nature by virtue of this unique freedom of the will. Freedom is the essential prerequisite for moral responsibility. -- "A."
Part IV: Our Futile Powers
Given that the divine is also seen as omnipotent, your actions, regardless of their impact, cannot match those of the design. That's even if you could lead entire human lives to absolute doom, like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein did to their subjects and enemies. Our free will is therefore nothing compared to a being/force capable of destroying entire worlds in an instant.
And, if we are made in divine image, this could mean we're capable of being morally responsible. Any such deity is either dumb to believe people will care about morality, or reasonably faithful to probably know all outcomes.
Even if I were not an atheist, but a believer in higher deities, then, based on reality, I would not love them, nor see them as symbols of hope and salvation; I would see them as malicious, egomaniac tyrants to be feared. They allow you to be free and expect praise and begging for it, as they already know, theoretically, what's going to happen next.
%20(1).jpg)
Comments