The next right thing
One can hear very young children saying, “It isn’t fair.” and a parent figure or teacher saying, “No it isn’t but we do not hit or do X in this family.”
Many of our spiritual teachers including Jesus, the Buddha, and many others have taught it is important to behave in a way which is consistent with one’s core values no matter what others did or did not do.
In October of 2018 there was a shooting resulting in deaths at a Jewish Temple in Pittsburgh, Pa. In June of 2017 there was a shooting and subsequent deaths at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. In both cases the immediate response of the congregation was that they would not respond in hate. Martin Luther King, Jr. following what he understood to be the clear teachings of Jesus preached and practiced non-violence. At least publicly, he never justified violence because someone was not playing/behaving fairly. While he was very clear it was important to speak out again injustice he also, I believe, understood that none of us are in a position to judge another.
Although there are pockets or places in the world where some are willing to engage in restorative justice, for the most part, we humans continue to believe that how we treat another should be based on how the behavior of others compares with our public behavior. These beliefs underlie our judicial system. Statistically, we know that this system of justice does not create a more loving, fair world. In fact, it does just the opposite. Yet we persist. This system of so-called justice requires that we stay attached to the following beliefs:
A system for assigning points for how we hurt each other or Mother Earth. Those with x points or above are bad people who deserves to be punished. This system may subtract some points or justifiable, hurtful behavior.
The number of points determines one’s label
One’s label very often defines the person for life.
In general, the line between white collar crime and smart business practice is very narrow.
Certain behavior is wrong except when it is not. Even some theologians, including so called Christian ones, write long and detailed justification for war or other killings.
If a person is label as bad or evil one no longer has to treat them as a sacred person. There is no hope of redemption.
One has to use certain language or words to tune in to the “right god” in order to be forgiven. Being forgiven under the rules of a religious institution does not result in forgiveness or lack of punishment by the body politic
Life should be fair.
Fairness = justice.
Punishment equal justice.
The God of one’s understanding speaks through particular prophets and other wise teachers to determine who is chosen or more deserving.
Resources, including property, belongs to individuals (or companies or some other legal unit), and not the community unless it is decided otherwise.
Legal can easily morph into right behavior.
In reality we punish many for behavior which some do not like or makes them uncomfortable even though it might not hurt others.
With few exceptions individuals are assumed to have brains which can understand, accept and make decisions based on community values even when community values are based on treating some as less than. Less than is often or usually based on artificial constructs such as race, gender difference, age differences, sexual orientation, or others. The science of the factors which affect the formation of a thought has little to do with how the community views the the action of an individual although there are a few exceptions.
Life should be fair unless one is deemed to be deserving of more than one’s share. One can be deserving, or underserving based on who one’s parents are, race, class, money, gender, sexual orientation or a host of other arbitrary constructs.
It is any wonder that it is difficult to convince many of we humans that one should do the next right thing just because it is the next right thing. Yet, in the midst of our convoluted beliefs and practices about what is fair, just , right or wrong we parents, teachers and other elders often attempt to teach children to do the next right thing just because it is the next right thing. This attempt aligns well with the practice of “Do what I say and not what I do.
The 12 step recovery programs such as AA, NA, SA, SAA, GA, OA and others comes much closer to providing a program which based on claiming one’s autonomy by basing one’s decision on doing the next right thing because it is the next right thing. Perhaps only those who behavior has been controlled by an addictive brain which was unable to consider the rights and needs of other can appreciate the science of the brain and the decision making process. I am not suggesting that it is easy for recovering addicts to grasp or practice this principle. I am suggesting that there is little room to argue with the principle within the program,
Clearly there are those such as the congregants of the Temple in Pittsburgh and the church in Charleston, SC as well as some other spiritual leaders who strive to practice doing the next right thing just because it is the next right thing. Father Greg Boyle, Mother Theresa are others who come to mind.
Perhaps all of us need to play with the consequences of doing the next right thing regardless of what feels fair or just. Perhaps teachers such as that Jesus’ fellow were on to something.
Written June 8, 2022
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
One can hear very young children saying, “It isn’t fair.” and a parent figure or teacher saying, “No it isn’t but we do not hit or do X in this family.”
Many of our spiritual teachers including Jesus, the Buddha, and many others have taught it is important to behave in a way which is consistent with one’s core values no matter what others did or did not do.
In October of 2018 there was a shooting resulting in deaths at a Jewish Temple in Pittsburgh, Pa. In June of 2017 there was a shooting and subsequent deaths at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. In both cases the immediate response of the congregation was that they would not respond in hate. Martin Luther King, Jr. following what he understood to be the clear teachings of Jesus preached and practiced non-violence. At least publicly, he never justified violence because someone was not playing/behaving fairly. While he was very clear it was important to speak out again injustice he also, I believe, understood that none of us are in a position to judge another.
Although there are pockets or places in the world where some are willing to engage in restorative justice, for the most part, we humans continue to believe that how we treat another should be based on how the behavior of others compares with our public behavior. These beliefs underlie our judicial system. Statistically, we know that this system of justice does not create a more loving, fair world. In fact, it does just the opposite. Yet we persist. This system of so-called justice requires that we stay attached to the following beliefs:
A system for assigning points for how we hurt each other or Mother Earth. Those with x points or above are bad people who deserves to be punished. This system may subtract some points or justifiable, hurtful behavior.
The number of points determines one’s label
One’s label very often defines the person for life.
In general, the line between white collar crime and smart business practice is very narrow.
Certain behavior is wrong except when it is not. Even some theologians, including so called Christian ones, write long and detailed justification for war or other killings.
If a person is label as bad or evil one no longer has to treat them as a sacred person. There is no hope of redemption.
One has to use certain language or words to tune in to the “right god” in order to be forgiven. Being forgiven under the rules of a religious institution does not result in forgiveness or lack of punishment by the body politic
Life should be fair.
Fairness = justice.
Punishment equal justice.
The God of one’s understanding speaks through particular prophets and other wise teachers to determine who is chosen or more deserving.
Resources, including property, belongs to individuals (or companies or some other legal unit), and not the community unless it is decided otherwise.
Legal can easily morph into right behavior.
In reality we punish many for behavior which some do not like or makes them uncomfortable even though it might not hurt others.
With few exceptions individuals are assumed to have brains which can understand, accept and make decisions based on community values even when community values are based on treating some as less than. Less than is often or usually based on artificial constructs such as race, gender difference, age differences, sexual orientation, or others. The science of the factors which affect the formation of a thought has little to do with how the community views the the action of an individual although there are a few exceptions.
Life should be fair unless one is deemed to be deserving of more than one’s share. One can be deserving, or underserving based on who one’s parents are, race, class, money, gender, sexual orientation or a host of other arbitrary constructs.
It is any wonder that it is difficult to convince many of we humans that one should do the next right thing just because it is the next right thing. Yet, in the midst of our convoluted beliefs and practices about what is fair, just , right or wrong we parents, teachers and other elders often attempt to teach children to do the next right thing just because it is the next right thing. This attempt aligns well with the practice of “Do what I say and not what I do.
The 12 step recovery programs such as AA, NA, SA, SAA, GA, OA and others comes much closer to providing a program which based on claiming one’s autonomy by basing one’s decision on doing the next right thing because it is the next right thing. Perhaps only those who behavior has been controlled by an addictive brain which was unable to consider the rights and needs of other can appreciate the science of the brain and the decision making process. I am not suggesting that it is easy for recovering addicts to grasp or practice this principle. I am suggesting that there is little room to argue with the principle within the program,
Clearly there are those such as the congregants of the Temple in Pittsburgh and the church in Charleston, SC as well as some other spiritual leaders who strive to practice doing the next right thing just because it is the next right thing. Father Greg Boyle, Mother Theresa are others who come to mind.
Perhaps all of us need to play with the consequences of doing the next right thing regardless of what feels fair or just. Perhaps teachers such as that Jesus’ fellow were on to something.
Written June 8, 2022
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
RSS Feed