Obvious?

There's a lot of debate, about a lot of things, these days. Some things I give my opinion on, some I tend to leave to others. Often for the simple reason that I believe that what should be done, or what is right, or what is true (as is appropriate to the particular instance), seems blindingly obvious. Yet, apparently not to many.

Perhaps this should be obvious - we have such a wide variety of personalities, backgrounds, upbringings, places we come from; so surely, consensus is never possible? Well, maybe. Maybe complete consensus is impossible. It's hard to tell. There are so many people these days.

But there are some things we seem to have all agreed on, by now. Slavery, for instance. It's a given that this is morally wrong, and just shouldn't happen, at all, period. It still does, in some places, in various forms and guises. But there's no trying to pretend that it's a good thing. It's a black market, and the people involved in it know that they're doing wrong - and choose to do it anyway. Or at least, that's my guess. I can't say I've chatted to any slave traders recently; or not as far as I know.

A while back, I wrote a post mentioning that my moral compass for many things was asking whether it hurt people or not. I realise that's a fairly un-specific measure - what do you call hurting? Physically, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically? But it seems to work fairly well. If what you want to do hurts other people - it's probably not great. If it doesn't - well, it still might not be great. But at least it's not not great in that particular way! It's not foolproof. But it can be helpful.

What about if it doesn't hurt anyone else, but just yourself? Yeah, still not good. Perhaps 'better', in some senses, because you're being self-sacrificial or something - but you get too many people that are torturing themselves on the inside, and nobody knows a thing about it. So that would be a no.

Think that things would work a lot better if people used a measure something like this. Of course, I'm somewhat biased. But, in my defence, it's not just my idea. "First, do no harm." That probably sounds fairly familiar....also, this one: "Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore, love is the fulfilment of the law." (Romans 13:10, New International Version)

It's not just about tolerating people, or the views that they have. I've never been a fan of that word, personally. It brings to mind the idea that I really don't like you, but I'll barely tolerate you. I'll tolerate your continued existence. That's not what it should be about. (And I realise this is not what people use the word for. This is just for me, my mental picture and understanding of this word.) Love is what I aim for. If you love someone, it's not just about going, "Oh, well, I guess you can keep doing that." Instead, it's about looking out for their best interests. It's about building connections, building intimacy, bringing people together, establishing community. It's not saying, you do your thing over there, and I'll do my thing over here, and if they don't touch we're all good. It's asking, how can I support you? How can I champion you? How can I help you, be there for you, love you?

This is what I want to be able to do, for people in general. I want this to be my default. And perhaps that's naïve, in a world with politicians, and scammers, and tricksters, and people that seem to be out to get you everywhere. But I guess that's not the world that I see. I see a world of beauty, full of beautiful people. Hurting people, yes. And people being hurt by, and that are hurting, other people. But beautiful people, all the same.

Think that's enough rambling for now. Probably enough in there for people to think about.