Is Euthanasia “good or bad”?
Isn’t that killing?
There is a big debate on that. Different laws in different countries will say different things. In Nature, to kill is neutral.
A falcon will kill to eat. The intention is to feed himself, to survive. It is not a business “for profit.” It is not to keep carcasses for another day and sell it or to teach that animal a “lesson.” On the other hand, humans have cynical reasons when it is about killing.
For instance, humans will kill deer (The nice label used is “hunting”) to manage the growing population of deer. Humans have killed the natural predators of deer as well.
Humans believe that human lives are above any other species.
Nevertheless, Humans will suffer the effects of those actions, as Nature requires a balance of species, which happens naturally without the thinking “help” from humans.
For Nature, there is no difference between a human life and an ant’s life, for those species are not seen as separated but are interdependent.
It is the belief of human beings to be “superior.” Thus, the intention behind the activities of humans will be tinted with that “superiority.”
That “Superiority” complex is depicted in human thought and belief systems.
As the intention behind human killing is hiding behind “economical reasons” or to preserve their own species overlooking others, then Nature will respond to balance those issues with a Natural disaster or humans themselves will kill each other as in a war.
Paradoxically, the “economical progress” and all perceived benefits in killing other species will be, washed away once Nature does its “cleaning job.”
It is called “zero balance.”
Of what help is human morality in “real life” (Nature)?
Not much. But yet, as a society we have selected a particular view of the world. We have created the “Office World.” That point of view is not an absolute by any means.
One last item: An intention is not a “whishy washy” thought. Something like: “I had the intention to help you, but something happened.”
That is not what I am referring to as “intention” although the dictionary may say so.
An intention is a feeling. It is what some will define as “inner voice.” That feeling which is the real drive to perform an action could be dressed up with thoughts and rationalization.
That is what thinking humans are good at. Rationalization is to come up with reasons to justify as to why we are acting in a particular way even though that inner feeling, feels otherwise.
For instance, John may voice how much he likes cows. Although his real intention is not to keep the cow alive but to kill it so he can gain profit. That greed is his real intention which could be rationalized in different ways to “look good and proper.”
Once we observe how tricky it could be for a society to pinpoint the real intention in an individual, then it becomes easier to come up with a line between “good actions” and “bad actions,” and to make a story as to why something is “good or bad” and thus “karma.”
When we understand that our human tendency is to “dress ourselves up” to look good, then spirituality is no longer a “practice” or something “to do to groom ourselves” but rather it becomes an issue of stripping down every belief, every learned story, every point of view, every thing that we could hold on to as a “savior” for the sake of being completely naked… then we could see that Nature is not separated from us, but us.