|
2004.03.03
Good Guys Finish Last?
Legend has it, that King Arthur and his round table of knights established a code of chivalry in an effort to establish which values would define the excellence of a knight and a true man. Part of this meant there were rules of conduct that elevated a human thru demonstrations of etiquette, mastery, self-discipline and choosing solutions that were usually the more difficult path.
It was considered cowardly to battle with or prey upon a lessor match offensively--to stab in the back or take advantage of obvious weakness. Honor came with an open and measured fight, because it was wit against wit - might against might. There would be no doubt who the victor was because the playing field was even; and, the fight revealed the true strength of the opponents involved.
The knight would seek out injustice and exploitation and would insert himself as the counter balance of fairness. He confronted hardship and threat with a mighty bravery. He valued Honor, Integrity and Truth above all--or so, the legend has it.
During America's War of Independence, the Colonialists and British, with their own bizarre code of war, would line themselves up, march up to each other's opposition and within a crazy proximity--shoot. Somehow, this measure of "brave" suicide was a meter for victory. And when the soon-to-be American's decided they would no longer play by the rules, they finally won the game.
When there is an established conduct of law, there is set an expectation for consistency. Consistency equals predictability--qualities exploited in natural law to land rovers on Mars and invent things like aquaducts, watches and computers. We strive for this quality of constancy in our attempts to invent / discover ethics which permit society to function and survive--at the same time hoping to lessen consequences of suffering and self-destruction. (At least, I think that is the goal of Ethics.)
But, if there are some who feel they are being tread upon, they find a platform of predictability, in the Law - du jour, to exploit and use for their own purposes. One only needs to justify within themselves that their "breaking of the rules" is for some greater good. And it is probably this concept that concocts the phrase: all is fair in love and war.
Where would we be if Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, the American Colonialists, or Rosa Parks did not break the rules? And yet, in each of these causes for justice, how many paid the ugliest of prices--prices that the supposed gift of human consciousness should have been able to avoid?
It's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?--what is just / what isn't? No doubt, Al Qaeda, Sadam Hussein, the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, the Nazi regime are examples of some who believe they had / have just cause. Thieves, murderers, the creators of computer worms and viruses, gay activists / bashers, lawyers, elitists, police, missionaries, abortion activists / opponents, the moral majority, the liberal socialist, republicans, democrats, Priestly lovers of youth, Tax evaders, insurance and investment frauders, Environmental activists--all feel justified in one form or fashion--don't they? Forgive me, if it's offensive that I should lump such a group together, but: How is the Good really discerned from the Bad? Is it a platform of Holy Scripture, the might of the State, the majority opinion, survival of the fittest? What is it that truly decides righteousness from evil?
Today, and perhaps it has always been that, if you embrace values like kindness, pro activity, sharing, empathy, tolerance, manners, looking out for neighbors and strangers, going the extra mile, playing fair, diplomacy, returning miscounted change, charging an honest fare, giving an honest day's work, concepts of excellence, leaving what belongs to others alone, telling the truth--your are sure to lose...aren't you?!
|
