The article discusses how it is difficult to guarantee that you can live a positive life even with laws, religion and morality. I agree with the author, that even religion, despite it's closeness to God, is highly debatable. Like the author says, because of the large number of different religions, all of which have their unique practices, it is difficult to gauge which religion to follow, if there is even a right one to follow. However, there is significant amount of similarities between all religions.
In my opinion, I think laws and religions should be nothing but guides to life, and we should have the freedom to pick and choose what is taught from these sets of guides based on what we identify most with. After all, the idea of a "positive" life is subjective. Because our place of birth and circumstances always start arbitrarily, it is too difficult to find a single universal guide to life. Situations will vary too much; so much that no two people can ever make too many of the same decisions, just because no two people are exactly the same, and be in the same situation at the same time. Having said that, if there is one universal rule to follow, is that we have to be able to logically explain (through ethics and such) for our actions, and ensure that it does not disrupt another person's life choices (this is assuming that we do not have to involve other people). In the event that another person's choices have to be compromised because of our choices and it is near impossible to agree on something, one or both party's positive life will have to be compromised somehow. I believe that this is because not everyone can win, and these compromises are essential for improving ourselves. It tests our beliefs, and teaches us new things. Saying you want live a completely positive life, is like saying you want a perfect life - it becomes utterly meaningless.
With the example of choosing guitar lessons over treating your mother and helping the poor, both laws and different religions will teach you different things. I feel like it could be morally wrong to deprive yourself of something you worked hard for (because it implies that your life and happiness is not as important, because you aren't really living for yourself anymore. And if such is true, why bother live life?), just as much as letting as it is morally wrong to not help someone else who is in need.
This subjectivity of a "positive" life is also supported when the author mentions good will not really being good will because it happens mostly because of the hope that you will have peace even in the afterlife (for those who believe in it). I agree with the author, that good will might not even truly exist, because it is just reflection God, and even then, because scriptures and other holy material have gone through so many generations that it is difficult to know what was the original in the first place. If good will is something you learn through religion, are people who have never had the opportunity to practice any religion automatically bad, and destined to go to hell?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.