Unidiversal Reconciliation - Idealistic Morality

Idealistic Morality

The void and ignorance of greed is the enemy of human value and consideration for all of us

and the whole of us is the only immortal lifeline that can overcome it.

Everything must have balance to be reasonable, moral, and wholesome. It is immoral to go to extremes without consideration for personal, social, global, and universal consideration. If something does not negatively impact health or well being in any of these ways, then their extremes are not immoral. Many times people are cosmetically offended by something that does not affect health or well being, this is an example of being extreme by moral idealism. Therefore, being offended as such is immoral.

Moral idealism is to believe that all people are to adhere to the same standards as everyone else in a group, society, or globally. Unless standards are established for purposes of health and/or well being, they are idealistic. An extreme example of moral idealism had to do with a religious organization inviting an outside speaker whom the members grew to value his recordings a great deal. Once the speaker arrived and stood before the congregation, the congregation and leadership grew uneasy at the sight of the face of a watch glistening from his arm. Before the speaker could begin to approach his subject for the evening, leadership had him removed from their sanctuary and ushered out the door. The speaker asked why he was removed from the sanctuary and rejected by the congregation. He was told that his expulsion was because of his watch. The speaker asked why his watch was an offense because he saw many members inside, as well as the persons removing him, wearing watches and his was a cheap, imitation watch with nothing unusual.

"You wear the watch facing outward, it is a sign of pride and materialism to show off the face of your watch by having it face out."

Little would the speaker ever have had any way of knowing that anyone would be offended by the direction of the face of his watch. The speaker was humble and would not have worn the watch in such a way, or would have even removed it all together had he been told it would be an offense. But was it extreme for the speaker to wear his watch as he normally did? Was it extreme for the congregation and leadership to not make the effort to help the unknowing speaker become acceptable for his engagement? Or was it extreme for the religious organization to believe that the direction the speakers watch was facing would have any significance pertaining to morality, eternity, or health and well being?

Whatever reasoning the religious organization had for such an issue, it is obviously morally idealistic to believe that:

1. Anyone not familiar to the organization would have any reason to know of such

an expectation.

2. Such an issue impacts anyone's standards, eternal destiny, or health and well being.

3. Any temporary cosmetic appearance could or should affect anyone or be grounds

for rejection of anyone in any way.

Moral idealism doesn't stop with menial cosmetics, it is used to ignore and reject people of differing races, religions, and lifestyles. To be idealistic enough to believe that anyone should be offended by, or be considered insignificant, because of their attire, appearance, or anything else that does not imminently impact health or well being is to be "easily offended" and is condemned by the Christian Bible (I Cor. 13). Such issues are hypocritical, as they have no real purpose or use but to actively condemn those who they believe are an offense. It is a paradox and an endless pit of deception to believe that offending those we are offended by accomplishes the purpose and goal of faith.

It is morally idealistic to believe that torture, the consistent threat and destruction of health and well being, of people can be stopped without impressive force. Likewise, it is morally idealistic to believe that abortion, stealing, and any other unpleasant survival tactics will be curtailed without escalating impressive force to eliminate the needs for them. Does war, abortion, or stealing accomplish any purpose of faith, of course not. Does criticizing and ridiculing them remove the source of these problems, no.

Judging these effects and ignoring the source of their problems implies extreme moral idealism and, therefore, hypocritical mentality and actions. To judge the effects of problems is to ignore their source. Judging, ridiculing, and criticizing doesn't accomplish caring, only searching until the source is identified and acting to eliminate the source problem implies care.

It is a mental deficiency to use judging, ridicule, and criticism to imply care. Not being able to identify the source of problems is not necessarily the fault of the criticizer. Being too lazy or self-centered to identify problem sources is critical and generally only a criticizer can know if s/he is being truly caring, hypocritical, or mentally deficient. Either way, ridicule, judgment, and criticism of the effects of problems rather than the problem sources are evidence of mental deficiency, laziness, &/or hypocritical mentality. Finding and eliminating the problem source is an accomplishment of faith.

So how far should anyone go to find and eliminate the source of problems that cause such effects as war, abortion, and stealing? Am I in any way, responsible for anyone else's actions or problems? (Gen 4:9) Anyone who judges, ridicules, or criticizes the actions or problems of another is making themselves responsible for them. What about if efforts are made to criticize then assisting to find and eliminate the problem source is part of the criticizer's purpose in life? Without accepting the responsibility, the criticizer is missing out on his/her life calling and fulfillment.

Condemning stealing is not enough; it will not stop stealing. Either the thief condemned, or others, will continue to steal again and again. The source problem of stealing must be identified and pursued. The economy, health-care, and financial equality personally, socially, and globally must be researched and pursued. Simply instigating condemnation of a thief without pursuit of these source problems is hypocritical by everyone who supports such condemnation in any way.

Criticizing and trying to stop abortion is not enough. Abortions will continue to happen as long as there are economic, health-care, financial, and other survival driven reasons to do so. It is hypocritical to pursue the elimination of abortions without pursuing the causes for anyone to believe there is a need for them. Until the source problems within the needs of survival are eliminated, abortions too will continue regardless of anyone's willingness or not to be a part of them.

Likewise, we would like to view war as an unnecessary evil that has plagued mankind throughout history. War, and murder of all kinds, are the razor-sharp sword that guts the pit of our stomach and spews it's human degradation out into full view. War instigates the paralyzing shock that demands people's attention to the depths of our nature to fail in realizing how much we condemn others actions while ignoring the source of their problems.

We can not ignore the destruction of health and well being without ignoring the torture of fellow beings. War is necessary as long as anyone finds the need for torture and deception to exist. Threat and destruction of anyone's health and/or well being, anywhere, is a reflection of the lack of every individual in the multitude of humans throughout history to take the time and make the effort necessary to resolve the source problems. Every person's every day life is affected and reduced by the threat and torture of fellow human beings we have never met and do not know.

Threat and torture are not limited to the destruction of health and well-being by oppressive tyrants, it also includes carelessness of governments, religions, and employers to eliminate the abilities of managers, leadership, coworkers, and members to instigate threats and actions that reduce and demean individuals affected by those organizations. It is one matter to hold an employee, employer, or organizational member accountable for his/her responsibilities, but it is a significant matter of moral idealism to penalize anyone for responsibilities not under their control.

So, is there any temporal adornment that is condemnable? Unless lipstick becomes toxic, hair dye emits mind control, or any other exaggerated threats to health and/or well being actually occur, temporal adornment is not condemnable. So-called "sin" can not be hated without hating the so-called "sinner" without those who judge being responsible for researching and eliminating the sinners "need" for the so-called sin. True sin is only against God, not anything anyone can do without a clear choice of rebellion against God.

And, is it possible to recognize, identify, and resolve sources of problems criticized by moral idealism and critical, mental deficiencies? Yes. It is only inadequacies of accusers abilities to accept their responsibilities that prevents them from finding the answers that eliminate the needs of the accused, thereby undermining their own purpose in life.