On why the phrase “every life matters” became immoral
I was very touched by the scandalous story that recently happened to the commentator of basketball games Grant Napear. I analyzed the situation from different point of view.
In the longer term, the slogan "every life matters" ("all lives matter") is right and correct because it appeals to eternal values. But, paradoxically, it turns out to be immoral at a shorter distance of time. In the current situation in american (and not only) society (culture), abstract (christian) humanism, whether it wants to or not, plays into the hands of those who want to maintain the status quo. Public opinion accuse him of immorality and strike him with his own weapon. And he falls, smitten by the absurdity of the accusation.
As for the riots in the US , this is an adequate response to systemic racism. People want real change, they want to put an end to the vicious practice of racial oppression once and for all, so they view conciliatory slogans with hostility.
The degree of intransigence in the United States is so strong that good-natured commentators risk getting hurt. Is it possible that the story of Grant Napear's dismissal was artfully orchestrated by Demarcus Cousins, who was settling personal scores, and the political situation just became a great excuse? Or maybe Mr. Napear is not alone, and with such slogans the guards of the system are trying to bring down the revolutionary impulse?
From the point of view of christian values every life matters. If there is God, then, of course, every soul is important to him, because even the robber was the first to enter Paradise (as it is written in the Bible).
Which side of the situation is more important: how exactly did George Floyd die (he was cynically killed by a white police officer) or that fact that his life was far from perfect? If there is а God, then both sides should be important for him.
Some system guards pointed to Floyd's moral character, exclaiming "is this man who pointed a gun at a child a symbol of black America?!" This criticism is not from a сhristian perspective. If there is a God, I can assume that Floyd could be just as clean and ready to enter Paradise at the time of death as that robber crucified with Christ. Who knows?
If there is no God, then only revolution matters?
From the point of view of left-wing political discourse: cowardly business did not stand up for the honored worker (Grant commented on "Sacramento" games since 1988). If even from the point of view of left-wing political thought Grant Napear is a victim, then whose revolution is this? The struggle of some racists against others racists? An attack by right-wing authoritarianists against right-wing libertarians? And, strictly speaking, can this be seriously called a revolution (or better call it a crisis)?
For analytical psychology the following is important: the story perfectly illustrates the repression of feeling by the extraverted thinking type, as described by C. G. Jung:
As for the riots in the US , this is an adequate response to systemic racism. People want real change, they want to put an end to the vicious practice of racial oppression once and for all, so they view conciliatory slogans with hostility.
The degree of intransigence in the United States is so strong that good-natured commentators risk getting hurt. Is it possible that the story of Grant Napear's dismissal was artfully orchestrated by Demarcus Cousins, who was settling personal scores, and the political situation just became a great excuse? Or maybe Mr. Napear is not alone, and with such slogans the guards of the system are trying to bring down the revolutionary impulse?
From the point of view of christian values every life matters. If there is God, then, of course, every soul is important to him, because even the robber was the first to enter Paradise (as it is written in the Bible).
Which side of the situation is more important: how exactly did George Floyd die (he was cynically killed by a white police officer) or that fact that his life was far from perfect? If there is а God, then both sides should be important for him.
Some system guards pointed to Floyd's moral character, exclaiming "is this man who pointed a gun at a child a symbol of black America?!" This criticism is not from a сhristian perspective. If there is a God, I can assume that Floyd could be just as clean and ready to enter Paradise at the time of death as that robber crucified with Christ. Who knows?
If there is no God, then only revolution matters?
From the point of view of left-wing political discourse: cowardly business did not stand up for the honored worker (Grant commented on "Sacramento" games since 1988). If even from the point of view of left-wing political thought Grant Napear is a victim, then whose revolution is this? The struggle of some racists against others racists? An attack by right-wing authoritarianists against right-wing libertarians? And, strictly speaking, can this be seriously called a revolution (or better call it a crisis)?
For analytical psychology the following is important: the story perfectly illustrates the repression of feeling by the extraverted thinking type, as described by C. G. Jung:
"... the conscious altruism of this type, which is often quite extraordinary, may be thwarted by a secret self-seeking which gives a selfish twist to actions that in themselves are disinterested. Purely ethical intentions may lead him into critical situations which sometimes have more then a semblance of being the outcome of motives far from ethical. There are guardians of public morals who suddenly find themselves in compromising situations, or rescue workers who are themselves in dire need of rescue. Their desire to save others leads them to employ means which are calculated to bring about the very thing they wished to avoid".
Comments
Post a Comment