I had an interesting conversation yesterday morning with someone online. The discussion touched upon a variety of topics, but the one that stuck with me throughout the day and the one to which I've given the most thought centered on sinning, for lack of a better term. The question we tossed back and forth between us basically boiled down to, "When a person engages in sinful behavior, does the size of the sin matter in terms of moral and ethical consequences?" Or to phrase it another way, "When a thief steals, does it matter if he steals little or steals big?"
It's interesting to ponder whether the consequences of a sin remain discrete and unchanging, regardless of whether a person made the lie, the cheat, the assault, or the theft on either a grand or small scale. Can certain circumstances mitigate or aggravate the ethical, moral, and psychological damage caused by the sin itself? The person I spoke with seemed to think that size didn't matter. He believed that an act that violated societal, personal, or religious moral codes had the same effect regardless of the size of the violation. The act, in and of itself, comprised the sin. He granted no wiggle room for justification or mitigation. For him, a person either sinned or didn't sin. It didn't matter be it big or small. If you are going to violate your code of ethics, you might as well violate it in a big way because each violation has the same weight in terms of consequence. If you are going to steal, you might as well steal big.
On one hand, I agree with him. I think moral and ethical standards require a person to either follow them or not. If you violate the code, the size of the violation doesn't matter. The violation exists, it resides out there in the universe, and a trust of sorts has been broken. However, this way of thinking generally only works in an idealized setting or in a static environment. And as most humans know, life is definitely not static. Events and people constantly move and roll with the vagaries of life. Dynamism characterizes our existence in this world, and rarely does anything ever stay the same for long. People's behavior, if not their thoughts, adapts to the circumstances in which they exist, and sometimes that requires viewing a sin or a violation with a relative eye.
Most people think lying to be a sin, but I am certain we have all been in circumstances where lying has helped a situation or another person. For example, if your child becomes ill and needs medication but refuses to take it, might you not tell your baby that the medicine tastes good, even if it doesn't? That's a lie, but the effect of the lie, making your child better, mitigates and even in my opinion, erases the moral violation of the lie itself. So, at some point, relativism has to take over because for certain instances, the ends do justify the means.
My other really good friend and I discussed this topic this morning, and he made me think even more deeply about the subject. I've come to the conclusion after much thought and discussion that I think it is important for a person to be mindful at all times of his or her moral code, but that a violation of that code has to evaluated within the context of each individual circumstance. It is very important to have the right thoughts and ideas regarding morality, but it is equally important to acknowledge that we fail all the time in meshing our thoughts with our actions and that sometimes our actions are justified. With this particular conclusion, I have yet again reinforced my knowledge that I am a pragmatist in thought, but an idealist in heart. If I ever get to the point where I can live exactly as I think, I will let you know. However, don't hold your breath as I think you will be in for quite a long wait. And, if I ever decide to steal, I know I will only steal little and only for the right reasons.
One thing i would like to say that moral is itself a confusing word .It may seems to be absurd but it is . For my respect one thing could be right for other it may be wrong so for one it can be sin and for other it cannot be sin .But after all i think we live in a society where there is some code of ethic or moral which should not be broken but being a human being we have got the power to think . So we must think in what circumstances those moral were broken. I agree with you that to lie is not always a act of sin but thing is that lie has been said for a positive outcome . In history or in epic there are several example of doing sin but those were done to get a right thing . Idealism always will not let you to be get right result . our live is not a straight line its a zigzag way so i think to live happily or to be with truth one have to pass through the sin and lie both.
ReplyDeleteNiraj