There is a certain kind of immorality that it seems relatively few people pay much attention to. It has no proper name, but it is common enough. One sometimes comes across examples of it on a daily basis.
The nature of this immoral behavior is to place a religious, political, social, or economic ideology or belief system above actual people such that some unjust harm is inflicted on them.
Jiddu Krishnamurti once gave a subtle example of this immoral behavior. He and his brother were returning to India after years at university in England. Their father was to meet them at the airport. However, their father had learned that the brothers had sampled meat while in England. Consequently, despite years of absence from his sons, her refused to show them any affection upon their return.
Please note that the only justification the father had for his behavior was allegiance to an ideology that stated his sons had become polluted by sampling a small quantity of meat, and that he too would risk becoming polluted if he came into physical contract with them. But the father had no weight of empirical evidence supported by logical reasoning for his views. And even if he had had such, to which does a father owe greater allegiance? To his sons, or to his ideologies? If his ideologies, then what sort of ideology takes precedence over actual flesh and blood? Surely not a moral one.
Krishnamurti's case may seem trivial, but it illustrates a much greater principle. A principle one finds applies to much more horrendous things than refusing to show affection to one's sons.
Can not the same be said of genocides committed for ideological reasons as acts of personal cruelty committed for ideological reasons?
And are there not many acts, both great and small, in which someone behaves immorally by inflicting an unjust harm or injury upon someone else solely because they value a religious, political, social, or economic ideology above human lives and well-being?
Tortuous essays denouncing newly discovered public villains ? Cute things your child or grandchild said today? Exaggerated accounts of sexual expertise? Questions? Comments?
The nature of this immoral behavior is to place a religious, political, social, or economic ideology or belief system above actual people such that some unjust harm is inflicted on them.
Jiddu Krishnamurti once gave a subtle example of this immoral behavior. He and his brother were returning to India after years at university in England. Their father was to meet them at the airport. However, their father had learned that the brothers had sampled meat while in England. Consequently, despite years of absence from his sons, her refused to show them any affection upon their return.
Please note that the only justification the father had for his behavior was allegiance to an ideology that stated his sons had become polluted by sampling a small quantity of meat, and that he too would risk becoming polluted if he came into physical contract with them. But the father had no weight of empirical evidence supported by logical reasoning for his views. And even if he had had such, to which does a father owe greater allegiance? To his sons, or to his ideologies? If his ideologies, then what sort of ideology takes precedence over actual flesh and blood? Surely not a moral one.
Krishnamurti's case may seem trivial, but it illustrates a much greater principle. A principle one finds applies to much more horrendous things than refusing to show affection to one's sons.
Can not the same be said of genocides committed for ideological reasons as acts of personal cruelty committed for ideological reasons?
And are there not many acts, both great and small, in which someone behaves immorally by inflicting an unjust harm or injury upon someone else solely because they value a religious, political, social, or economic ideology above human lives and well-being?
Tortuous essays denouncing newly discovered public villains ? Cute things your child or grandchild said today? Exaggerated accounts of sexual expertise? Questions? Comments?
