There are several ways to love but ego will always get in the way of it…
In accumulated conversations with men, I have often heard comments like, “I know this is double standard but I cannot be with a woman who have had more sexual partners than me or with a certain type of morality that I do not subscribe to.” The question is whether this is a matter of preference or a function of idealism and narrow mindedness.
I debated a lot about whether to write this post. One, for the conjecture on how it may be perceived, misinterpreted, and possibly the controversial dichotomy I am aiming at but what’s a writer without a little bit of dishevel?
In the subjective question of morality, I have found one thing to be quite central, people who say the truth tell it in ways that best suits the narrative they are gunning for. So in some ways, we all lawyer up. The very thing you will condone in a person because you know them intimately is the same you despise in another. It is said “love breaks every rule” I think love expands the frontiers.
It is convenient to extol the metric of preference or standards when we want to cancel people especially in judgmental scenarios, and that´s fine because in the end, we all have intrinsic bias right?
My preoccupation however is the moment we weaponize our standards and principles against empathy and graciousness towards other human beings.
What do I mean? To avoid deeply controversial issues, I will just cite rhetoric questions, are your principles more important than the suffering of another? Is your judgment or forgiveness capable of wiping out guilt? If the tables were turned and you find yourself in their position, the exact same station in life they are, with the same set of options they are faced with, how will you interact with this moral set of rules you hold dearly?
The next question is where do you draw the line between upholding principles and flexibility on living? Does the fact that you do not judge a person for the choices they made or make mean you condone the act when it offends your morality? Does flexibility with certain ideals mean you lack morality? Are certain issues in life not deeply contextual? Can everyone be the same and approach issues from the same perspective? At what point is there room for understanding? Is it understanding if it is something we already agree with?
I was listening to a podcast where the guest speaker said “my belief does not need your participation to be my belief but it is okay if yours needs mine.”
If you are a deeply religious person, it is easier to become sentimental about what you perceive as God’s values and standard and in extreme cases, to act on behalf of God. The difference is God has an inherent capacity to forgive in such a manner that blots out the sin. However, human forgiveness is subject to remembrance hence, continuous nailing on the cross or need for “re-forgiveness.”
I totally understand the need to be on a clear line of morality to act in ways that cannot be mistaken for tacit participation in value systems one does not subscribe to. To ensure that the politics we play are truly the representation of our views. However, the question is how objective is the morality we practice? who is the arbiter? our rationality, experiences, or conscience?
While my intention is not to engage in a synopsis on subjective morality, it is definitely my perspective that we can act in love to people around us even when we do not agree with the decisions they make.
Using principles and morality as a platform to perpetrate hate and reinforce guilt does not in fact make you a better person or a righteous one. If anything, righteousness is bestowed not acquired.
Well, that’s my two cents and this post is definitely triggered by events that sparked the need for this analysis.
I am happy to share the tea, if you are brave enough to ask.
Xoxo
Dcconoisseur.
Connoisseur of Memories 