There is a price to be paid for everything

You cannot give what you do not have.

To do good to others, one would first need to accumulate the goods that can be shared with others.

These days, the trend is for the individual to view himself as a supreme being, the one and all. According to this life philosophy, the individual is the be-all and end-all. Good is achieved whenever he or she is able to live a life without intentionally causing harm to others. For these individuals, they argue that as long as no harm is being done on others, they are morally entitled to do anything under the sun. There is no sense of responsibility towards the community or civic duty - one comes and goes as he pleases.

When I write this, I am highly aware that 95% of readers would find this philosophy laudable. They clap their hands to applaud this philosophy - the "do-no-harm" philosophy.

What would this same audience of readers think of events such as the Dunkirk Evacuation? Why I cite this seemingly random event is because it is a fairly recent war movie that moved me. Another movie that was unforgettable for me was Hacksaw Ridge, based on the war hero Desmond Doss.

In Dunkirk Evacuation, British civilians with sea craft volunteered to fetch soldiers stuck on Dunkirk Beach at the risk of their own safety. Desmond Doss volunteered as a war medic despite being a Conscientious Objector, sacrificing his own safety beyond the call of duty to save many lives.

Will this generation ever produce selfless acts of heroism? Is altruism dead? It is logical to deduce that it is - because individuals think that the noblest act is the preservation of himself above all other motives.

Many people still want to be heroes, but the ones who want to be are the ones who don't know the true meaning of heroism. What's more, many people crave heroism without being fully self-aware of it.

I am referring to the vandalism in street protests. Vandals do not view themselves as bad, in fact, they see themselves as brave. They may even justify to themselves that their action must be bad in order for good to be achieved. In other words, ultimately they still see themselves as heroes.

Are these vandals willing and able to pay the price? Which is arrest and jail?
Would they able to look back on their lives, after having paid the price, and judge themselves as having done GOOD?

Going back to the theme of this entry, you cannot give what you do not have. Once you have embarked on a course of action, you would need to pay the price for it. And if you have not set aside the payment for it, it would be wrenched from you involuntarily. Maybe sometimes due to pure luck, one can escape the consequences, but what point is there to rely on luck.

If we can only truly exercise good after having lived an exemplary life, conversely is being bad an output of a wretched existence?

All the street vandalism is an outward expression of inward rage and deprivation. Society needs to address this. One group of people can only advance so much at the expense of another - once social disparity rises to an unacceptable level, upheaval begins.

So ... in the midst of this ... the prevailing belief is still that the highest good is no more than to live and die unto oneself? I find it highly ironic. And most of all, an unsustainable belief system.