A Moral Rose By Another Name

We have all observed the conversations, perhaps even participated in them.

We have tried to find our places on the scale of what we find acceptable, excusable, or understandable as far as reactions to horrible incidents go and, subsequently, how to react to the reactions, and so on.

We can look to the past to try to understand how the dynamics have evolved, but many of us don’t.

We can look to the future to try to extrapolate how dynamics may evolve, given past tendencies and patterns, but many of us don’t.

Somehow, we have taken the mantras of “live in the moment” and “always look forward” (or “choose forward”, as the case may be) perhaps a little too literally. Imagine the chaos our roads would become if we all drove without awareness of what flanks us or what is behind us.

I’ve heard many times how the violence we are seeing now is justified (an adjustment may need to be made to distinguish between those with legitimate grievances and those looking for any excuse to harm others) and how no large-scale change ever comes about without violent uprising.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps it isn’t. MLK and Gandhi come immediately to mind, but my intention is neither to invalidate the point, nor to endorse it. Rather, I’d like to add different angles to ponder.

If we can justify violence under certain circumstances, what are those circumstances?

Is it the severity of the original offence? If so, where is that line? Is it death? If so, how many lives lost justify taking more lives? What is the appropriate ratio? If not death, then what?

Is it economic oppression? How much financial loss warrants a violent response and to what extent?

Is merely being treated unfairly an acceptable catalyst?

Is it the duration of the injustice? If so, how long should one tolerate it and how many avenues of recourse should one exhaust before violence becomes the only alternative?

Is it the prevalence of the injustice? If so, how many people need to be victimized? By how many offenders?

If we’re honest with ourselves, we can quickly and easily realize that, somewhat awkwardly, it’s hardly ever black and white.

Hypothetically, let’s assume there was a significant portion of the adult population, let’s say somewhere between 5% and 10% that have faced systemic and prolonged bigotry and, due to sheer ignorance, experience the escalation of it daily, despite their many contributions to society.

Let’s also assume that in some cases, intentional misrepresentation was used to amplify the ignorance and, despite being model citizens, they were, at least in the public eye, portrayed as social agitators and were always the usual suspects in incidence of crime.

Let’s also assume that in an effort to appease an increasingly fearful public, they were being forcefully separated from the property they had earned honestly and properly, presumably to encourage their departure from among our midst.

Would this be reasonable grounds for a violent uprising? Would we change our social media profile pictures and bombard the ether with platitudes of “this is what happens when” and extend our support?

Would we do all that and more if the group of people described above were peaceful and responsible owners of legally acquired and possessed firearms?

Because this time, that’s exactly who I’m talking about.