I passed these two guys recently who were stopped at a red light. They were
flailing their arms to some tune I couldn't hear, obviously enjoying
that particular moment in their lives. It started a chain of thought;
what about the billions of people who don't have all the resources we
have for enjoying life in the wealthier countries? What about those who are capable of achieving
fulfillment in life wherever they are? And what about those with
greater talent, intellectual ability, courage, appreciation for living
or a propensity to be good or evil? If there is a God and this is It's
test, we obviously aren't all given the same starting point.
Would all the rewards be equalized out to make it fair somehow? Or
(I'm not suggesting rank), is there a natural recognition of those who
made the greater or lesser use of their time here? Would we judge
others as we would ourselves, in the light of undeniable Truth,
recognizing the need for oblivion for some, and to feed on the brighter
light of others?
Doesn't the greater obstacle or the greater the achievement from one's
starting place deserve more respect? Would the rich child who grows up
in the freedom of Singapore or the wealth of the US who saved the world,
be more or less worthy than a street urchin in Zimbabwe who risked his
life to save another's? Is fairness even an objective. Think of an
audience enjoying the talents of the performers they see on stage or
screen, only now all types of talents and accomplishments would be
appreciated in the same way.
For the moral subjectivists, should this recognition be a
goal in this life, is that possible, or should we go further and attempt
to give equal respect to everyone no matter what they do? Should we
make Hitler equal to Gandhi, for instance? If not, how do we
differentiate?
As you can see, this post is more questions than answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment