Regular people aren't good or evil, really. We like to think we're good, but we're sinners, and as such we invariably play both sides.
If we pay attention, we can stay on the "good" side of the ledger, and not perpetuate terrible evils. People 100 years ago could do this, could stay "good people", by simple routine.
50 years ago? The number of people who couldn't properly understand good from evil was shockingly large, much larger than ever before. The amount of attention needed to reckon one's actions as good or evil, to any extent, was much more demanding while also seemingly less urgent - how could a middle-class life of relative leisure and good behavior be evil, for example? In lots of ways, as it turns out.
Today? Only the most diligent of people can perhaps properly claim to be more good than not. I can't be sure even I am more good than not. I'd like to think I'm not perpetuating evil, but (as always) evil pervades everything in our world, and technology supports both good and evil. Who among us uses today's technology with a real understanding of the costs (economically, or morally)? Who can get through daily life without using tools (of all sorts) whose functions are beyond our ability to properly comprehend?
In the face of insurmountable obstacles to diligence in all aspects of one's actions, how can we know if we are acting for good, or for evil? We carry on with our lives regardless. We are indifferent to what we can't comprehend, so long as our indifference does not prove itself dangerous.
How do we stop evil in this scenario? It must become dangerous to remain indifferent. People must be enabled to readily comprehend if their behavior is tilting towards evil, and how so, so that they can correct themselves. Most people, when given a true choice between good and evil, will recoil from evil.
Dangerous, in this sense, does not mean (only) physically dangerous. To the extent that indifference to evil starts to threaten people's livelihoods, for example, those people will no longer be able to afford indifference. Once they start to care, they may find that they are impotent in the face of the threat, and then become desperate.
The tools by which evil gains and wields power have been turned against evil itself. These will be the same tools that will come to threaten regular people. When people have no way to stop the threat, they will become desperate. These people must have a way to act to protect themselves, that is itself not evil, and which serves to minimize actual harm overall.
I believe "the plan" provides for this, nothing more or less.
Regular people aren't good or evil, really. We like to think we're good, but we're sinners, and as such we invariably play both sides.
If we pay attention, we can stay on the "good" side of the ledger, and not perpetuate terrible evils. People 100 years ago could do this, could stay "good people", by simple routine.
50 years ago? The number of people who couldn't properly understand good from evil was shockingly large, much larger than ever before. The amount of attention needed to reckon one's actions as good or evil, to any extent, was much more demanding while also seemingly less urgent - how could a middle-class life of relative leisure and good behavior be evil, for example? In lots of ways, as it turns out.
Today? Only the most diligent of people can perhaps properly claim to be more good than not. I can't be sure even I am more good than not. I'd like to think I'm not perpetuating evil, but (as always) evil pervades everything in our world, and technology supports both good and evil. Who among us uses today's technology with a real understanding of the costs (economically, or morally)? Who can get through daily life without using tools (of all sorts) whose functions are beyond our ability to properly comprehend?
In the face of insurmountable obstacles to diligence in all aspects of one's actions, how can we know if we are acting for good, or for evil? We carry on with our lives regardless. We are indifferent to what we can't comprehend, so long as our indifference does not prove itself dangerous.
How do we stop evil in this scenario? It must become dangerous to remain indifferent. People must be enabled to readily comprehend if their behavior is tilting towards evil, and how so, so that they can correct themselves. Most people, when given a true choice between good and evil, will recoil from evil.
Dangerous, in this sense, does not mean (only) physically dangerous. To the extent that indifference to evil starts to threaten people's livelihoods, for example, those people will no longer be able to afford indifference. Once they start to care, they may find that they are impotent in the face of the threat, and then become desperate.
The tools by which evil gains and wields power have been turned against evil itself. These will be the same tools that will come to threaten regular people. When people have no way to stop the threat, they will become desperate. These people must have a way to act to protect themselves, that is itself not evil, and which serves to minimize actual harm overall.
I believe "the plan" provides for this, nothing more or less.