Hi Rick!
I guess you would then have to define the parameters of what actually constitutes that which benefits humanity and that which hinders it (but then again, that would differ greatly from person to person, now wouldn't it?). For example some people donate money for charity, and one would assume they did it just to benefit their fellow man. But what if they did it just to get kudos from their clients, or the public in general, or because they wished to impress someone or make some sort of gain from it? Some people actually feel quite justified in doing this, and consider it a good deed nevertheless. But does motive play a part in what you define as what is beneficial for humanity? Or does the ends justify the means?
I recall an instance some years back when a predominanty white church in Camarillo decided to assist a black church in Simi Valley, at a time when the local newspapers were calling local pastors (including myself) and asking questions about modern segregation in the local churches. Instead of discreetly giving the assistance (which is what the Bible teaches), the church members parked their cars about a mile down the street from the church in Simi Valley and then publicly marched to the church to give them a large check. In the process, the local newspapers were informed by the giving church of the event, and photographers were sent to the scene to chronicle every step of the way. The photos and story made it a week later into the front page headlines of an article entitled "Sunday Segregation". Would you consider what this church did in the best interest of their fellow humans, or would it have to be discounted on account of their desire to "advertise" their deed and serve their own church's self-interest?
Similarly, what about the fellow who undermines his co-worker in order to advance himself or a friend for a position? Certainly, either he or his friend benefits from his actions, but what about the fellow who got stepped on? Is such a deed considered as "in the best interests of humanity"? Or is it something that impedes humanity by virtue of the fact that someone was forced to lose in order that someone could win?
Also, what about the woman who aborts her unborn child? Some women actually think they are doing themselves a service by ridding themselves of such a big responsibility. In fact, most abortions are obtained because the woman doesn't want the inconvenience of raising a child. Some might even see it as one way to keep the human poplulation down. One less mouth to feed. So I suspect that some women would see abortion as a benefit to humankind, in that neither they nor the world is burdened with yet the responsibility of another soul. Other women, however, see it as a deplorable practice, one of which undermines respect for human life.
These are but a few examples I could think of in just a few minutes in response to your question. So I suppose that before I could actually agree or disagree with your thesis, you would first need to define the parameters of what is and is not beneficial to humanity. But as I stated at the beginning, this would vary with every individual. And so a uniform standard would be very difficult to achieve unless you could get those who would differ with your conclusions to compromise their positions.
And yes, you DO owe me an email!! :-) Don't worry...I'm patient.
Ray
Originally Posted by walterick