ALL of a sudden, we are nowadays
hearing a lot of people
invoking the “no-perfect” alibi to rationalize their views. There’s no
perfect father, no perfect mother, no perfect child, no perfect
family, no perfect etcetera.
And now that we are getting into the usually hot political
season, we are also hearing such excuses as no perfect politician, no
perfect candidate. And from there, people pontificate or dogmatize
their political preferences and opinions.
While that excuse has a certain validity, we have to
remember that it comes with a lot of other things that need also to be
considered seriously, like instructions, contraindications,
alternative options, and many other opinions.
While it’s true that we have to make do with whatever we
have or whatever is available, that is, a wonderful call for patience
and understanding, it does not mean that we won’t make the effort to
look for better options or some improvement of the situation.
In other words, that excuse should not be made to stop in
itself, making one fully contented with a certain status quo. It has
to contend with what are the views of others, let alone, the standard
and criteria of what is considered as the ideal. We need to keep on
trying to polish our understanding of things and improve on our
performance.
What can worsen this “no-perfect” excuse is when people
use it to dogmatize their positions and demonize those of the others
who disagree with them. Sad to say, this is what is happening these
days in the political scene.
We hear reasonings like “better a killer than a criminal,”
“better a curser than a robber,” etc. At the very least, these
reasonings make the gravity of the different evils subject only to the
opinions and consensus of people, a product of the I’m-ok-you’re-ok
mentality. There’s no more objective basis.
Murder can have equal weight as stealing, or can even be
considered as the lesser evil, when in fact the former does not admit
of parvity of matter, (meaning it is always grave), while the latter
does, (meaning it may or may not be grave).
I know that in heated political discussions where passions
run high and a lot of bashings and mudslingings are done,
considerations like this get lost. But it’s important that we give due
attention to these important points, otherwise we will be setting
ourselves for a graver problem and crisis later on.
Knowing how political systems work, what is usually done
at the top, whether right or wrong, moral or immoral, somehow filters
down to the lower rungs until it becomes part of the system. If the
leader is honest, most likely, the followers will also be honest. If
the leader is a murderer and flaunts it, most likely the followers
will also be the same.
Thus, we have to consider whether murders and illegal
executions of perceived wrongdoers that become part of our system are
a lesser evil compared to some systematized corruption. Of course, we
have bad options to choose from, but just the same we have to be
careful that we don’t jump from the frying pan into the fire.
This is where we have to use the “no-perfect” excuse
prudently. We cannot help but to make do with some forms of evil. But
we have to make sure which evil is lesser and more tolerable. And in
an unavoidable evil, we also have to make sure that our cooperation in
it would at least be passive, not active, and with firm intention to
correct it.
We have to distinguish between what is already a formal
and active cooperation of an evil, which means that one knowingly and
freely participates in the evil, and what is mere material and passive
toleration of evil, since he cannot avoid it, at least, for the
moment.
Formal cooperation is always sinful and should be avoided.
Material cooperation may be tolerated, but under certain conditions
and precautions. Among these conditions are:
(1) The cooperating act must be, in itself, good or at least
indifferent morally.
invoking the “no-perfect” alibi to rationalize their views. There’s no
perfect father, no perfect mother, no perfect child, no perfect
family, no perfect etcetera.
And now that we are getting into the usually hot political
season, we are also hearing such excuses as no perfect politician, no
perfect candidate. And from there, people pontificate or dogmatize
their political preferences and opinions.
While that excuse has a certain validity, we have to
remember that it comes with a lot of other things that need also to be
considered seriously, like instructions, contraindications,
alternative options, and many other opinions.
While it’s true that we have to make do with whatever we
have or whatever is available, that is, a wonderful call for patience
and understanding, it does not mean that we won’t make the effort to
look for better options or some improvement of the situation.
In other words, that excuse should not be made to stop in
itself, making one fully contented with a certain status quo. It has
to contend with what are the views of others, let alone, the standard
and criteria of what is considered as the ideal. We need to keep on
trying to polish our understanding of things and improve on our
performance.
What can worsen this “no-perfect” excuse is when people
use it to dogmatize their positions and demonize those of the others
who disagree with them. Sad to say, this is what is happening these
days in the political scene.
We hear reasonings like “better a killer than a criminal,”
“better a curser than a robber,” etc. At the very least, these
reasonings make the gravity of the different evils subject only to the
opinions and consensus of people, a product of the I’m-ok-you’re-ok
mentality. There’s no more objective basis.
Murder can have equal weight as stealing, or can even be
considered as the lesser evil, when in fact the former does not admit
of parvity of matter, (meaning it is always grave), while the latter
does, (meaning it may or may not be grave).
I know that in heated political discussions where passions
run high and a lot of bashings and mudslingings are done,
considerations like this get lost. But it’s important that we give due
attention to these important points, otherwise we will be setting
ourselves for a graver problem and crisis later on.
Knowing how political systems work, what is usually done
at the top, whether right or wrong, moral or immoral, somehow filters
down to the lower rungs until it becomes part of the system. If the
leader is honest, most likely, the followers will also be honest. If
the leader is a murderer and flaunts it, most likely the followers
will also be the same.
Thus, we have to consider whether murders and illegal
executions of perceived wrongdoers that become part of our system are
a lesser evil compared to some systematized corruption. Of course, we
have bad options to choose from, but just the same we have to be
careful that we don’t jump from the frying pan into the fire.
This is where we have to use the “no-perfect” excuse
prudently. We cannot help but to make do with some forms of evil. But
we have to make sure which evil is lesser and more tolerable. And in
an unavoidable evil, we also have to make sure that our cooperation in
it would at least be passive, not active, and with firm intention to
correct it.
We have to distinguish between what is already a formal
and active cooperation of an evil, which means that one knowingly and
freely participates in the evil, and what is mere material and passive
toleration of evil, since he cannot avoid it, at least, for the
moment.
Formal cooperation is always sinful and should be avoided.
Material cooperation may be tolerated, but under certain conditions
and precautions. Among these conditions are:
(1) The cooperating act must be, in itself, good or at least
indifferent morally.
(2) The intention of the one cooperating should be good. (3) There must be
a just cause. (4) And the good effect desired in that cooperation
should not be the consequence of the bad effect.
To be realistic with the way our political life is, we
need to be clear and firm with these moral principles. For this, we
need to intensify our prayers, have recourse to the sacraments, deepen
our doctrinal formation and develop virtues.
We should always try, in whatever way we can, to transform
evil into good.
a just cause. (4) And the good effect desired in that cooperation
should not be the consequence of the bad effect.
To be realistic with the way our political life is, we
need to be clear and firm with these moral principles. For this, we
need to intensify our prayers, have recourse to the sacraments, deepen
our doctrinal formation and develop virtues.
We should always try, in whatever way we can, to transform
evil into good.
No comments:
Post a Comment