BETWEEN SELFISH AND GOOD, IRRATIONAL AND PURPOSEFUL

In the popular Belgrade TV-show for kids "Cube, cube, cubicle" the host Branko brought before the kids a chocolate bar and a bunch of parsley. Then he explained extensively all the reasons why chocolate is not healthy, and why parsley is.

Then he said: "Kids, I don't know what you are you going to take, but I do know what I am going to take. I will take the parsley!" Then he took and ate a heap of parsley.

The kids' reaction vas various. A couple of them took the parsley boldly and not hesitantly. A few of them took the parsley, but with an evident suppression of their desire to rather take the chocolate. Some of them took the chocolate, but with a guilty conscience for they were taking what they knew was not healthy. And couple of them took the chocolate without any noticeable conflict with their own conscience, as if they had not listened to the lecture about unhealthiness of chocolate.

In this "experiment" we see a conflict between selfish motives of human nature and a motive of a true love. To a selfish man it is more important how he feels, than whether what he is doing is well, and so he will be prone to choose rather a tasty food than a healthy one. In all his daily activities it is also more important to him how he feels while doing something than whether what he is doing is good for his existence. A question is imposing upon us of whence in human nature the motives that are purposeless to his existence.

Some think that man is so programmed genetically that what provokes pleasant feelings in him (in natural conditions) is what is healthy for him at the same time, and so they justify the selfishness as something natural and needed. However, were it be the case, then man would have never got the common sense whereby he himself takes the responsibility of choosing what is good, but would have been stopped at his genetic determination. If hungry, he would pick a fruit that is tasty. He would not a need to think about its healthiness, but would give himself to being lead by his emotions and feelings.

Natural flavor of the basic raw a chocolate is made of - cacao, is very unpleasant, because of a set of poisonous substances that taste bitter. Therefore, in natural conditions cacao would never be consumed by man.

But, is it necessary that man is moved by selfish motives if he is to have chosen a tasty food between a tasty and tasteless one? No! For him to have chosen a tasty food sufficient is his having the sense of taste. Is a man to be gluttonous lest he die from starvation? No! For him is enough to have a feeling of hunger to look for food and eat it. Feelings and emotions exist in order to draw attention of our mind to our or other's needs, but whether our reaction to those feelings and emotions will be selfish or good, irrational or purposeful, is a quite different question. (It is a spiritual question.)

WHAT DOES THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMMON SENSE REVEALS TO US

The common sense provides us a freedom from something that looks well just on first sight, but also from apparently hopeless situations, and so it raises us above being limited by our existing experience.

Use of the common sense provides us with greater freedom in satisfaction of our real existential needs, but only if our common sense is moved by a motive of unselfish love.

The existence of the common sense in a man moved by selfishness contests the theory of natural selection and evolution, for the common sense in a function of selfish motives separates him even more from his existential needs. Man will simply make a shortcut to his selfish pleasures, by abusing all his intellectual and physical powers with an aim of satisfaction of selfishness and to disadvantage of his real existential needs.

For example, man will take a drug, tobacco or alcohol just in order to feel well, and precisely through that he will endanger his existence. As to the example with the chocolate, man will add sugar into cacao in order to lessen the bitterness of its poisonous substances, and so consume it in spite of its unhealthiness. It is interesting that animals having the common sense much less developed than man show much more purposeful use of it, that is they behave much more reasonably than him. For example, a group of rats that have on their disposal very tasty and smelly food, but with a lethal poison in it, will wait to see the effects of that food on one of their "volunteers". If the "volunteer" dies, other rats will avoid that food rationally, regardless of its very attractive taste and smell. In an identical situation man behaves irrationally in most of cases. He chooses to use an unhealthy and excessive food, alcohol, tobacco and drugs, although he is familiar with their lethal action.

It is often stated that if men had an awareness of the effects of their behavior they would then behave quite differently. However, the praxis shows us that such an awareness has almost none expected function. Men know that smoking is not healthy, and they still smoke. It is only when the consequences of a sin endanger human existence to an extent where the very satisfaction of human selfishness is questioned, that the man will try to correct his behavior, but most often by mere applying symptomatic solutions that are not demanding his renouncing his selfish motives in his essence.

All this makes us facing a very important fact:

If there were not a possibility of the common sense being moved by a true unselfish love, then there would not be a sense in the existence of the common sense, for it could have just a negative role, and by that itself it would never have originated. So the existence of the common sense indicates that it has been created to function moved by a motive of true unselfish love exclusively, that showing to us an existence of the true unselfish love itself. Then the common sense has its correct purpose of inducing a man to do what will produce his BEING well, not what will produce just his FEELING well.

SINFUL MOTIVES ARE NOT PURPOSEFUL TO THE SURVIVAL OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR A SPECIES

It is obvious that the main problem of the survival of the human civilization is not in a lack of the common sense and abilities themselves, but in the lack of healthy motives that would make human common sense healthy and make the use of human abilities purposeful to human survival.

Although man sometimes looks very anxious about his own survival, he smokes, drinks or through some other actions shows that he is not really concerned with the survival. He is ready to sacrifice both his health and his existence to his pleasure.

A gluttonous man will sacrifice his stomach for food, as well as a conceited man will be prone to commit suicide for his vanity hurt. A nationalist will sacrifice his nation for his national values, as if man exist for his values' sake, not they for his. As the natural motives move us by a selfish love, which always looks for a reason for our love, we will tend to sacrifice even the object of that love for the sake of the reason we love it.

While moved by sinful motives, instead of a motive of true love, man reacts to both pleasant and unpleasant feelings with irrational behavior: to a feeling of joy he reacts with selfishness instead of gratitude, to a feeling of fear he reacts with cowardice instead of courage, to that of wrath with hatred instead of tameness, and to that of sorrow with worry instead of care.

We see how the natural motives induce man to behave in the way which is not purposeful to his real interests, and also how thereby man's motives of behavior deny the theory of natural selection and evolution. Natural selection would never leave alive the individuals moved by motives purposeless to their survival. In other words, had the principle of natural selection and evolution really formed properties of a species, man would never have become sinful.

On the basis of this consideration we can conclude that sinful motives of behavior are also pathological motives of behavior, for they induce man to behave purposelessly to his and others' existential needs.

IS THE `QUESTION "WHAT IS SIN" A RELATIVE ONE?

Can we, after all, say that the question of sin is a relative one?

A relativity of sin is most often spoken of by persons moved by sin themselves, that is by irrational motives, and never by those moved by unselfish love. Who is not moved by unselfish love is often not able to realize even by his common sense the difference between good end evil, for the ability of discerning good from evil, purposeful from purposeless, would also reprimand his own irrational (sinful) behavior. In order to appease his conscience, he rejects the principle of good interpreting it through the principles of his spoilt heart, and forms an opinion that the question of good and evil is a relative one or that a real goodness does not exist at all.

He is not able to understand the Biblical definition of love and sin we are provided by God's moral law (Ten commandments). He sees the Law just as a blind rules, and fails to understand its spirit (sense), and the Ten commandments seem to him like just one of many codes of behavior characteristic for various other religions and ideologies.

Differently from human codes of behavior, the revelation of God's moral law deals with motives of human heart, not with a mere form of behavior. God's law will not reprimand directly with its letter eating the chocolate, but will reprimand clearly the selfish motives inducing man to feed unhealthily. If the Law limited itself to reprimanding the mere form, it would not induce man to solve the problem at its root - in a reform of his sinful motives.

Those neglecting the significance and function of God's moral law are not able to repent their sins, but repent just its unpleasant symptoms in behavior and feelings. Since the very cause of sinning - sinful motive - has not been reprimanded by demands of God's law, nor extirpated by God's plan of salvation, they still proceed to sin.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE CHOSEN PURPOSELESS PRINCIPLES OF LIVING?

At the end of this consideration an important question is imposed upon us:

Why would a man ever have chosen the principle of sin it being not purposeful to his own existence?

Because it is only by which he can be moved if he wants to find happiness INDEPENDENTLY of God. Therefore, the root of every sin is in arrogance - in an entirely irrational independence:

A sinner speaks, consciously or not: "It doesn't matter it is impossible to be achieved without God, I still want it Myself!"

Since man, being separated from God, has became empty spiritually, deeply unsatisfied in his essence, now he must fill that emptiness himself. But, it is impossible. He himself can only suppress the awareness of that emptiness, and so he is burdened with certain emotions by which he "drugs" himself in order to forget his separation from God, his inner spiritual problem.

It is all the same whether a man is burdened with the feelings provoked by him through bodily pleasures, use of drugs, abuse of music, meditation or a fanatical religion.

As long as he is burdened with so-called psychological needs, that are a by-product of a dissatisfaction of his spiritual needs, man has neither time nor will to love, both himself and others, and his behavior is irrational for that reason. Simply, a burdened man cannot love.