Unpredictable Consequences
Not too long ago, a person with quite some mind recommended what sounded like a hedonistic lifestyle to be ideal. He stated that seeking pleasure was a worthy and rewarding objective in and of itself. He had but one caveat - "as long as nobody gets hurt".
Well, for me, that is the kicker. I have had some humbling experience regarding the unforeseeable degree of harm caused by my actions. I don't believe that it is possible to ensure that "nobody gets hurt".
Given that, why bother worrying about the consequences of our actions? why not just get away with whatever we can and put the rest down to the vagaries of fate?
I've noticed that there is also a practical, self preserving side to sticking to your own harm minimising rule set. I don't believe that, even if you do the right and moral thing, it is possible to ensure that no harm will follow from your actions, but in doing what you believe to be right, if harm should follow, you are protected from guilt by reason.
If actions undertaken do cause harm, but on examination you can honestly say that you did the best you could given your knowledge at the time, there is a rational shield against the inevitable pain of guilt. The milling 'coulda, shoulda, woulda's can be muted or partially banished, allowing you to recover your sanity sooner and more fully.
If you move away from your concept of what is right or wrong - with the idea that those rules do not apply because of special circumstances - or if you make a conscious choice to do wrong, or not think adequately, and harm eventuates, you are exposed to the full and relentless blaze of the guilt and responsibility. No shield, no respite.
I am uncertain what tactic the person whose conversation prompted this post would use to cope if his actions caused inadvertent harm. Perhaps the fact that the harm could not be foreseen would be enough protection. Perhaps they don't feel that responsibility traces back around corners?
Well, for me, that is the kicker. I have had some humbling experience regarding the unforeseeable degree of harm caused by my actions. I don't believe that it is possible to ensure that "nobody gets hurt".
Given that, why bother worrying about the consequences of our actions? why not just get away with whatever we can and put the rest down to the vagaries of fate?
I've noticed that there is also a practical, self preserving side to sticking to your own harm minimising rule set. I don't believe that, even if you do the right and moral thing, it is possible to ensure that no harm will follow from your actions, but in doing what you believe to be right, if harm should follow, you are protected from guilt by reason.
If actions undertaken do cause harm, but on examination you can honestly say that you did the best you could given your knowledge at the time, there is a rational shield against the inevitable pain of guilt. The milling 'coulda, shoulda, woulda's can be muted or partially banished, allowing you to recover your sanity sooner and more fully.
If you move away from your concept of what is right or wrong - with the idea that those rules do not apply because of special circumstances - or if you make a conscious choice to do wrong, or not think adequately, and harm eventuates, you are exposed to the full and relentless blaze of the guilt and responsibility. No shield, no respite.
I am uncertain what tactic the person whose conversation prompted this post would use to cope if his actions caused inadvertent harm. Perhaps the fact that the harm could not be foreseen would be enough protection. Perhaps they don't feel that responsibility traces back around corners?
posted by Jac | 9:12 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home