How will Our Successor View the Actions of Today?

This is my theory that humans, in the end, are all the same. They can and might be selfish sometimes, but when their very own identity (such as nations, religion, and many other deciding factors that exist throughout the river of time) is threatened, they will always prove that humans have their selfless side. The question of whether selflessness results in goodness or hatred is not that hard to answer, in the end, it will be a grace for one side and demise for the other. Various conflicts have proven that idea and I think that needs no further proof.

Deriving from that baseline, I can simply conclude that it is improbable to judge a person’s action, whether the past, our present or our future. But I wanted to discuss this problem deeper. Is there any exception to it? How do we decide which action is proper and immoral? And by the same logic, which side does humanity stands in? And how will the future derive from our current situation? There are many glaring problems that I want to discuss, not as a competitor, but as a fellow human.

If we look at my baseline theory, then it should hold in certain conditions only, which is that the action taken is driven by the spirit of selflessness and willingness to sacrifice for their kind, but we know that in the past there are some rulers or person-in-power who act on their selfish desire only. Now how do we address those situations? Well, for me it is easy in theory yet hard in the application. If their status and power which enabled them to act selfishly come from themselves then it is alright to do it, similarly, if it comes from others but that person has the consent of all his contributors, then it is ethically alright to do it. However, we all know that it is impossible to implement it first due to our lack of information on their background details and the situation back then and lastly due to the impracticality of asking everybody’s consent on your activities during that day, both lead to the improbability of accurately judging our predecessor’s actions.

This begets our next question, immorality. I want to say that Sir Columbus’s discovery of the American’s is immoral because of its partial result: the colonization of America. But it is that very discovery that helps propel our technological advancement and it is one of the pillars for our current success. Again, for me, this is a difficult question but at the same time an easy one. Don’t you find it similar? It is once again proven that each action has its own merits and demerits, its supporters, and haters.

That leaves me to say that if we want to conclude their action by our standards or more elaborately whether it provides benefits for mankind future or not, we can judge it by our standards (the outcome that we felt), but there is and will always be an event-driven by action that the future generation felt immoral and a disaster but surprisingly beneficial or even lifesaving for their current era. It will be the same no matter where and when we stand, whether it is we who make the judgment for our predecessor, or it is our successor that makes the judgment for us. You cannot and should not judge an action simply by the future outcome for it is not only you who lives in this world. Put it simply, who is so selfless to bring doomsday to their generation purely so that the future may be brighter?

So, which side does humanity stands on? This might prove to be the answer to the question. If we can pinpoint which side humanity usually chooses then overall, we can conclude that it is where our answer to judging it should be. The problem again lies in the morality of the action or should I say the side that we — as an individual — stands in. If simply going by humanity, then it is easy, as humanity itself tends to side with a typical act of sacrifice that garners sympathy which results in an overall benefit for the human race.

But again, human is selfish by nature, how can we say that this outcome is for the best for all of us? Humans are diverse by nature, each component of our lives crisscross with each other, religion, nation, gender, races, skin color, anything. Each of that diversity leads to a muddled answer, the very answer that we seek to vindicate. Sadly, I am still unable to give a proper answer to this question even until now.

Well, having no answer is not entirely true as I have some proposition on my own. The first being that we should judge them by our standards because when we do that, then it means we are heading directly towards where humanity points us to. On the other hand, we cannot claim that everyone will agree with us, which is to say our judgment only holds, partially. The other answer is more radical, which is that for everyone to judge with the same view is practically impossible. Then I propose that whoever manages to reach the top should make the call — they have been tempered, they manage to establish their own in this dog-eat-dog world, they manage to ‘win’ against their contemporary peers. Yes, this will be extremely biased, this will mark an act of sacrifice as blasphemy, but it will also let a certain group flourish. It is impossible for there to be a consensus in this regard, so I will only state my opinion as a pure opinion. Perhaps this is what the proverb meant, “The winner becomes the king, the loser becomes the thief.”

History has proven itself that whenever there is interest, then the conflict shall follow; Whenever there is a difference, groups will separate; But when faced with an external threat or an adversary so great that it did not differentiate between allies or enemies, then humanity will prove itself that selflessness and willingness to sacrifice is still rooted deep within their bones.

Then, how shall the future judge our actions of today? It is impossible to say, but one possibility that I might think of, is that how our successor will judge our actions will originally not derivate from our ways by much, but it is by the virtue of their leader and their people’s voice that will change its course.

Well, at the end of the day, if I may say so myself, then it is clear to see that there are one problem and two solutions from my perspective. The problem being the division between good and bad that is hard to perceive solely by our situation and not counting their situation. And the answer to that is letting the future judge by their current condition — does it prove to be better or worse? Or by letting the current leader decide which is righteous and which is vile.