Motivations

[shnarkle]

Some people see something and they want it, but there's a law in place that informs them that to steal what they want is illegal. They are told it is wrong to steal, and there is a penalty in place to deal with this transgression if they are caught stealing.

There are also people who either lack, or no longer have, this desire for what isn't there's to begin with. Their motivation isn't necessarily due to any sense of right or wrong, but because they have an innate sense of revulsion at the very idea of taking something that isn't theirs, or perhaps the property of others isn't going to add anything to their life that they don't have already, they're simply incapable of stealing. The point here isn't to determine what the reason is, but to point out that the law forbidding theft is irrelevant to them. They don't need a law prohibiting theft because they have no need or desire to steal in the first place.

Another example is the secluded tribe in south America that has no word for "rape". The reason being that no one has ever been raped. It isn't something that exists in their culture. Therefore, they naturally have no laws prohibiting rape. It is't a part of their vocabulary because they have no conception of it to begin with.

Paul says that "where there is no law, there is no sin", and this is essentially saying the same thing, but people also interpret this to mean that where there is no law against theft or rape, to rape or steal is then perfectly acceptable. While one cannot transgress a law that doesn't exist, it doesn't then follow that just because a law has not been codified, it is acceptable to transgress it. In other words, the law against theft or rape already exists, and it exists in human beings. Those who are not aware of this law are psychopaths when they transgress them, while those who never do are human beings.

The problem is that not all human beings are aware of their own innate value nor the innate value of those around them so they must be taught that stealing is wrong, and informed that if they are caught stealing, they will be punished. There are penalties for transgressing the law. This becomes their motivation for refraining from stealing. However, this isn't enough to keep them from stealing because they have no inner or innate awareness of why this is wrong or evil. They don't actually see their own innate value nor the innate value of those around them.

When they do become aware of the intrinsic value of all humanity, the law no longer motivates them to obey the law. Does this then mean it is acceptable or moral to engage in theft? Certainly not for them. Does this do away with the necessity of the law for everyone else who still has no awareness of the intrinsic value of themselves or those around them?

What if these two worlds collided? What if those who have absolutely no desire for the possesssions of others live in the same neighborhood as those who want what others have?

As soon as the theft occurs, the thing stolen is now in the possession of the thief, but the person who has no desire for the possessions of others, by definition and by nature, couldn't care less. Obviously, this only works if the theives only steal from those who have no desire for the possessions of others. If this were the case, it seems evident that theft would become a meaningless concept.

I now have a house full of garbage, and my neighbors now come over to rummage through it because they have decided to take on the oppressive task of cleaning my home, and they have elected to do this quite simply out of the kindness of their hearts. I sit back and relax as they waltz out my front door with what they view as prized possessions. Go figure. Nonetheless, they are doing me this great favor. Is this not something approaching a perfect world?

Jesus puts it this way: "He who steals from me steals trash" Jesus draws the line for what is trash just slightly beyond the entire created world.

Is it any wonder that when the homeless are given places to live, clothes, etc. that they tend to treat these gifts as if they were worthless? I'm not referring to all people who are homeless. No doubt some are quite grateful, but they're still aware of the fact that there's no point in working for anything if they can acquire it without working at all. This alone is enough to lower its value as well as one's sense of gratitude. One isn't likely to be grateful for someone else's free garbage when it is already so plentiful.

What happens when it is all garbage? Doesn't the idea of tithing become somewhat ridiculous or redundant? Most people look at tithing as a minimum allowable amount. They must tithe at least 10% rather than no more than 10%. But if you have an overabundance of wealth that you want to get rid of, what do you do then? You begin to look at tithing in a whole new light. You begin to come up with laws to bypass this onerous law that prevents you from tithing more than the maximum allowable.

Obviously, this is not so that people will view you as some sort of giving person. This would never be a consideration if everyone had the same problem. It is strictly due to self interest alone. So what inevitably happens is we are then forced to pay an offering to the gods for our financial affluence. First there is the offering of thanks, then the offering for our tresspass against our neighbor for having more garbage than they do. We are a blight on the neighborhood, and must pay.

Does anyone see where this is going? As all of this garbage is filtered down through society, it builds up until those who have more eventually have no more than anyone else. Then there is no one to give our garbage to anymore. Tithing becomes redundant and must be abandoned. The only option left is to abandon our garbage. No doubt this is irresponsible when there is no one who wants or needs the burden of dealing with this blight on society.

Obviously, this scenario is just as true with material wealth as it is with garbage.

If we take this scenario with regards to wealth rather than garbage, we don't have this problem right now. We're lucky enough to have most wealth accumulating with the top one tenth of the top one percent. But if it were to all begin filtering down would the fact that there are those who are willing to collect one's wealth or garbage absolve us of this lack of responsibility? Are we any better or worse than the next guy who is responsible just because he follows the law?

In other words, is it morally acceptable when there is a demand, but morally unacceptable when there isn't? Would this still be the case with regards to rape, polygamy, slavery, genocide etc.?