If this is true, than people who are regularly ‘bad’ can
supposedly excuse or justify themselves by committing ‘good deeds’. The person
in question is not changed – they just believe they are not bad because they
did one ‘good’ thing. Consequently a bad person can convince themselves they
are not so because the one ‘good’ thing they did means the ‘bad’ thing, in
effect, didn’t happen. For me, this means the whole concept is undeniably
flawed. And in more ways than one.
Firstly, it seemingly allows bad deeds to happen so long as
good deeds continue to happen as well. How can this be ok?
It makes me wonder if this is how the Tory government sleeps
at night and how they can convince themselves they are still good people
despite the considerable damage they have done to the country - the most
blatant (non-COVID related) example being that, since the Tories came to power,
life expectancy in the UK has gone DOWN. Yes, you read that right – DOWN. But
all these bad deeds are supposedly ok because of any ‘good deeds’ they’ve done.
This is not how this should work. This is little better than
spin – it is not right to allow bad deeds to go unnoticed or to be forgotten or
hidden just because of the occasional act that is not ‘bad’. And it certainly
is not acceptable behaviour for a country’s leadership or government.
There
is also the matter of whether the ‘good deeds’ could actually be viewed as that
or if it just seems that way from their perspective because they can see the
benefit but that’s a discussion for another day.
Secondly, a good deed does NOT cancel out a bad deed. If
someone commits a good deed, that does not mean the bad deed did not happen –
it just means they are not a completely bad person.
If someone seriously wishes to atone for their actions then
it is not and cannot be a quick fix solution. Years of misdeeds cannot be wiped
out by one good one. But one good one is an important and worthwhile start on
the path to atonement as, surely, the whole point of the concept itself was
that one good deed is the start of turning over a new leaf rather than equating
to the eradication of all previous bad deeds. It was a way of recognising what
happened in the past was wrong and should not happen again.
Perhaps now, when the country is returning to a new ‘normal’, is the best time to realise this and to start to change our viewpoint – no more
excuses, no more delusion, no more denial. Acceptance, acknowledgement,
accountability.
After all, when someone’s been wronged, the main thing they
want is an apology from the person who’s wronged them. No-one should be exempt
from that – not even governments.
The idea might be to avoid showing a sign of weakness but
it’s actually not apologising that’s the sign of weakness as it shows a refusal
to accept the situation, to acknowledge the wrongdoing and take accountability for what shouldn’t have happened. That can be much more damaging than any apology
could ever be.
So, if you’ve committed bad deeds and you’re sorry for them
the message shouldn’t be ‘doing good deeds cancels them out’, it should be that
doing good deeds starts to help undo the hurt the bad deeds caused. It doesn’t
mean the bad deeds didn’t happen – they
did and this must be understood - but it does mean you’re not allowing them
to continue.
