A Moral Dilemma

Should we establish different moral compasses for the advantaged and the disadvantaged?

The Heavenly Congress had convened once again, setting the stage for an intriguing debate. All the angels had gathered, and the assembly was presided over by the founders of the moral code for humanity.

Today, the Heavenly Congress faced a momentous decision: “Should we establish different moral compasses for the advantaged and the disadvantaged? Those who lack wealth, those who are differently abled, and those born in the harshest of circumstances?”

This question had long divided the community, but the clamor for different standards of morality was louder than ever. The reason was clear — sin had been on the rise, and the Gatekeepers of Heaven debated whether to lower the entry barriers to Heaven. The population of virtuous individuals seemed to be dwindling, and Heaven appeared emptier in recent times. On the other hand, logistical challenges were emerging in Hell as it struggled to cope with the increasing population of sinners from Earth.

As the House had settled in, one of the senior legislators proposed the bill and said the following:

“Members of Congress, we gather here to address a matter of grave importance.

The fundamental duty of all men and women on Earth to adhere to a moral code of conduct. But can the same moral compass apply to a person living in a mansion and a homeless individual with nothing for dinner?

After all, it is we who do not distribute wealth equally at birth.

How can someone born into an oppressed race be expected to follow the same principles as those in the Royal Mansions? An empty stomach cannot uphold the principles of morality.

As the entire assembly listened with unwavering attention, the legislator continued to address,

Through this bill, I hereby propose two options — either we provide an equal starting point for all women and men on Earth, or we allow exemptions for certain immoral deeds to compensate for the inequalities created by birth.

A hungry person could resort to food theft, engage in shoplifting, or even rob a bank. An woman born under racial oppression could commit murder to escape her own atrocities.

The further one deviates from the global average of birth privileges, the greater shall be the allowances for immoral acts.”

As the argument came to an end, the assembly was left in astonishment. It was a challenging proposition to reach a consensus on, but one that couldn’t be completely dismissed either.

The debate went on. As the Question Hour opened, a sense of fear and confusion gripped everyone. Someone shouted,

“A sin is a sin, and the gates to Heaven can never open for someone who has only committed sin on Earth.

We must not promote a culture of hatred under any circumstances!”

The murmurs grew louder, and the legislators were thoroughly confused. Hours passed with arguments and counterarguments, but a solution remained elusive.

Just as the session seemed headed for a deadlock, a silent monk raised his hand and proposed an alternative.

“Instead of lowering the sin threshold for the underprivileged, why don’t we raise the goodness barrier for the rich and privileged?

A million-dollar donation from a wealthy banker should carry less weight than a rice bowl donation from a poor individual. The one who sees others’ pain while overlooking their own should be considered a true servant of God.

Those who help others while facing their own problems should be revered higher.

With this, a sin will always remain a sin, but acts of kindness from the underserved will hold a much higher place in our Moral Court.”

The legislature yet again fell into a contemplative silence. After much deliberation, a rhythmic applause emerged, and the entire congressmen and congresswomen agreed to the proposition. Ultimately, the bill was voted upon and passed with an overwhelming majority.

Legend says that to this day, this bill continues to evaluate the deeds of men and women on Earth.

As the session neared its end, God Himself made an appearance, smiled at The Silent Monk, and whispered softly,

“My dear child, remember, a sin is always a sin, and hence I agree with your proposition.

But there is a fundamental flaw in this whole debate between privileged and underprivileged, for you to ponder upon —

The world is under the illusion that the underprivileged commit more sin. It is often the other way around. It is just that one is better at hiding than the other.”

The session ended, and The Silent Monk went to his heavenly abode ruminating on the powerful words of God himself.

If you like my articles, please do subscribe so that you never miss one!