'Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Very Fundamental Question'. From the View from the Ark of the Catholic Times. Written by the Religious Peace Scholar, Lecturer at the Catholic University of Korea.
Looking at the people he knows, they are generally good to people. They try not to harm others, know how to help others when necessary, and generally have amiable personalities. Many of them are the kind of people who could live without serious problems in society. It is hard to imagine them intentionally harming anyone.
However, while groups and societies are composed of such individuals, their modes of operation differ greatly. They are cold rather than warm. States even wage wars. How many people are dying in Ukraine, Iran, Palestine, Rwanda, and elsewhere? Yet, they cannot stop.
The groups and states formed by these individuals shoot at each other. Where does this contradiction come from? For now, we can explain it as follows. For example, an individual named A can treat a close acquaintance B warmly because they understand him to a considerable degree. However, regarding C, whom they do not know well, A finds it difficult to act proactively and slightly reserves judgment. Regarding D, E, and F, whom they know even less, A relies solely on rumors or makes self-centered judgments. If A does not know F well, they should try to understand them positively, just as they would B. However, it is difficult to actually treat strangers in that way. It is easy to treat a friend to a meal, but difficult to do the same for a stranger on the street. One might remain indifferent to events that occur far away, or apply one's own standards when judgment is required. Moreover, A often hears news about F through rumors. We sometimes use hyperbole or sharp emphasis on specific parts to convey meaning, and rumors form as such exaggerated expressions accumulate.
A group or society is a world where these exaggerations are superimposed. The problem is that F judges A the same way, and so does everyone else. Consequently, while they are moral toward those close to them, they become immoral toward the entire group composed of strangers. The degree of misunderstanding and indifference toward strangers becomes incomparably greater than the degree of understanding toward acquaintances. A group formed by the overlapping of such misunderstandings and indifference is 'society.'
Groups and societies tend to flow in directions different from individual morality. This stems from people relying on packaged rumors or biased news, while each person imagines and judges things in a self-centered manner. A society where such self-centeredness is layered creates a collective egoism that is difficult to manage through individual moral conduct alone.
Could such contradictions within the group be resolved if the number of Christians increases? The problem is that the group and the whole are not the sum of the individuals. Even if good people gather, when a large group forms, mutual agreements for its operation are bound to emerge, and organizations and systems are bound to emerge. However, organizations and institutions exist 'outside' the individual, and the way the 'outside' is connected to the 'inside' varies with era, situation, region, and individual disposition. Tension and conflict arise as these 'differences' overlap. Even if someone tries to act well, their good intentions are not conveyed as intended. The less well people know each other, the more likely they are to suspect, "Could they have some ulterior motive?"In this way, the world becomes increasingly characterized by subtle negativity and blatant self-centeredness rather than mutual affirmation.
Even great teachers like Jesus and Buddha, who sought to affirm all of humanity, became alienated from existing society and the mainstream order. This is not because individuals are evil. Society and the state are forces too immense to be overcome by individual conscience alone. Almost unconsciously, and sometimes inevitably, the majority compromise with this immorality. The state becomes an immoral force pursuing national interests, and even good individuals cast their votes for politicians who prioritize those interests.
In this way, self-centeredness grows in size and becomes a massive organism. What does it mean to live as a person of faith in such a crisis? Can a faith community overcome these harsh contradictions? As long as we prioritize our own benefit and inner comfort, we are highly likely to contribute to this fundamental contradiction. It is time to redefine the breadth and depth of faith and theology.
