So recently I have been reading The Authority, a super-hero comic written by (can you guess?......) Warren Ellis. Well, he wrote the first volume, which is what I have. Anyway, one of the themes that the story touched on interested me quite a bit, and it's one that I don't think we think about too much in super hero comics. Basically, at one point it kind of asks the question: what really gives these people with superpowers the right to change the world in ways that they believe is right? Obviously most superheroes act in accordance with what is generally accepted to be right (should Spider-Man save that kitten in the tree? Yes!), but from a relativistic point of view, it's an interesting question.
I'm not actually going to only talk about comics today, because what most inspired me to write this post was how this idea applies to our real lives. I made that connection yesterday when I heard a story from a friend - I won't relay it since it's hers to tell, but it was basically about helping an injured animal. And that's something that we can all probably relate to in some way, whether from direct experience or not. The question inevitably comes up whether it's better to try to do something, or just let nature take its course. Not the easiest question to answer, is it? Who's really to say what we 'should' do?
Now, The Authority dealt with this topic a bit more...strong-fistedly, I guess you could say, with grand events that literally change the entire world. But our lives might not necessarily be so different from that, when you think about it. As we know, small decisions can lead to big results, good or bad. Kind of like the butterfly effect, I guess? Even with the best intentions, we may end up causing the situation (or even another situation) to get worse.
Like let's take the injured animal example. Say you find a hurt mouse on the street, but decide to just leave it and let nature take its course. That may seem a bit cold-hearted, but imagine this. What if a weak, starving stray cat found the mouse, and it managed to survive because of that meal. Then the cat was taken to a humane society, and got adopted by a family who gave it to their sick child. The child's spirits were lifted so much by the cat's presence that he found the will to fight his disease, and eventually got better. Obviously the chances of that happening are extremely slim, but no one can truthfully say that they're zero.
So, what does that all mean, then? Since we can never know for sure what the outcomes of our actions will be, does that just mean that we should never act? Well, back in the days when I was feeling a bit more apathetic, I probably would have said yeah, pretty much. But now that I am in a much better state of mind, I figure, what is the point of living if we are just going to let it pass by without trying to make a difference? I think we really must try to make the lives of those around us better, because chances are that they will return the favour.
So the real ticket here is judgement then, isn't it? We have to try our best to determine whether acting in a certain situation will be for the better or worse. But that's hard, of course. I suppose better judgement does come from experience, though it could never be ground down to a science. I guess all we can really do is act - or not - with the best intentions, and hope that it all works out for the best.
What's that old saying? "Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Whether one believes in god or not, I think that's something that we should all hope and strive for.
No comments:
Post a Comment