676
Character development in real life rule (feddit.uk)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

What has he done to reconcile all the lives he's ruined

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    A monk decided to meditate alone, away from his monastery.

    He took his boat out to the middle of the lake, moored it there, closed his eyes and began meditating. After a few hours of undisturbed silence, he suddenly felt the bump of another boat colliding with his own.

    With his eyes still closed, he felt his anger rising, and by the time he opened his eyes, he was ready to scream at the boatman who had so carelessly disturbed his meditation. But when he opened his eyes, he was surprised to find that it was an empty boat that had struck his own. It had probably gotten untethered and floated to the middle of the lake.

    At that moment, the monk had a great realization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 child)

    that he was gonna have to go launch a whole investigation to find out who the boat belonged to and who didn't tie it up securely so that he could yell at the correct person?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 days ago

    He realized that new interns were starting next month and he should have them build an island in the middle of the lake for him to meditate on, big enough that a bit of flotsam bouncing against the shore would not disturb his meditation.

    Also see: brother comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    This is my new favorite way to say "Google it lmao"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 child)

    Most internet summations don't include the realization I read elsewhere, so I just left it as an the exercise for the reader.

    Basically, it's this: You know how sometimes you have a bad day and are being a jerk? It's not "you" exactly, it's just all the shit you have to deal with. You just have to shift those bad days to your childhood, and have a lot more of them, and they have to be worse, and you have a person who is permanently a jerk. But, in the metaphor the boat, is that person any more an empty boat than you are on a bad day?

    We're all, to a large degree, empty boats bumping into each other, pushed together by the many different currents of reality, so don't take so many things personally.

    In this case, the priest is just a result of how he was raised, or whatever influences pushed him into this horrible life of gay conversion; and the good thing, of getting out, was also probably a result of influences pulling him away from it. So, also, don't get hopped up on people's ability to control their lives from some objective moral vantage point that does not exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    See, I took the metaphor as: don't get irked by every event (boat bump) that affects you if you don't understand where it came from. Don't assume a human is controlling it when it could be an accident if you would just open your eyes and investigate. In this case I was assuming that maybe the pastor had atoned for his past by donating to or starting a charity or something.

    So this interpretation of the empty boat being a metaphor for people in general is fine. It's an exercise in an aspect of stoicism (don't worry about people you can't control, you don't know what someone has been through etc.)

    But to extend it to moral subjectivity is bizarre. I think you hide behind metaphor but the clear implications in the context of this discussion is that a closeted gay pastor who abused children can't be held morally accountable for their past because they had too many bad days in their childhood. What it boils down to is a platitude (I.e. that almost everyone is a good person in their own personal story), but the guy harmed other human beings.

    I hope I don't have to spell out why it's heinous to imagine a world where everyone walks around not judging actions because they think all morality is subjective. It gives license to atrocious behavior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    You still can hold people accountable for their actions even if those actions were inevitable given their history.

    But people obsessed with punishment like things to be simple. Bad people are born to bad things, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Right, so the reaction doesn't make sense given the context. The person asked if the pastor had atoned for their actions by reconciling with the people who's lives they've ruined, which is perfectly in line with holding someone accountable for their actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    I replied on a work break without a KB so my reply was briefer than I would have fully liked.

    So, there's this problem of free will... I kind of don't believe in it, but I think I personally need and we socially need the concept of personal accountability to function, at the very least because social sanctions and social repercussion DO effect behavior.

    At the same time, though, we do make allowances for intent and circumstances. A drunk driver will more likely get manslaughter than murder because the intent is there. An wife may get a lighter sentence for killing an abusive husband. I think we keep extending the totality of the circumstances to the persons entire life, we would be aiming more for rehabilitation than punishment, and I don't see anything wrong with that. However, if someone is not rehabilitated and resocialized and can't be trusted not to commit heinous crimes, then it makes sense to keep them locked up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    I think you replied to the wrong comment again lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Not this time... your concern about accountability is a natural part of coming to grips with a universe without the free will we all grow up thinking we have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Ok... Then I suppose my response is that I don't really see what your response has to do at all with mine.

    I actually agree that the idea of free will is at the very least unknowable leaning towards non-existent and whether we have it or not we get better outcomes when we act as if it does.

    But my comment doesn't concern free will, or at least it applies whether we think it exists or not. Morality and accountability are both social constructs and despite that they are about as important as anything when it comes to what we think is right for a person to do when they commit what we consider atrocities.

    I think you're retreating to a 10,000 ft philosophical view about free will and the subjective morality of the human condition and... I don't really see how it applies or what the point is. Are you just assuming you're educating someone about absurdism and stoicism? If that's the case then I would encourage you to take the walk back down the mountain. As you understand philosophy you must come to grips with the fact that at the end of the day we're all left facing the messy, amoral milieu that we live our lives in and we are able to affect. Despite our acceptance of the empty boats that plague us we still face their consequences and live short lives in a short-lived society that we are able to improve.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    My idea was to apply a little compassion and understanding to a real-world situation. Growing up in a hot-house conservative Christianity systematically programs you to think in certain ways, ways that you'd be less likely to chose for yourself as a rational adult.

    Thinking about the scopes of free will that we do have is a way to limit our monkey-brain desire for VENGEANCE for people who make the WRONG choices. Maybe this guy was not free, in any real way, to choose not to be a total conversion therapy dickbag, so maybe we shouldn't desire to punish him... and that's where our conversation started, not on a mountain, but with this very real situation.

    I'm not really into stoicism or absurdism.'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    That's why this is confusing and non-sequiter. You replied to someone asking whether he had made amends with his victims. That's not a desire for VENGEANCE, that's not even necessarily a punishment if he has the right attitude, and it most definitely doesn't imply that they don't think the guy was a product of his upbringing and culture. So all of these replies are just bizarre in context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent