part of a philosophical work, hastily translated into English two years ago sorry for any odd phrasing.
A kid is drowning in a lake and you happen to pass by, you hear him calling for help and you are about to rescue the kid. Suddenly a person appears from nowhere, a time traveler, and here’s what he is saying to you: ” Before saving this kid I am letting you know that this child will become a serial killer that will strangle ten kids.” Then this time traveler shows you undeniable proof of his assertions. What do you do? Will you save this kid or will you let him die? This is what I call God’s Dilemma. And it can become exponentially more difficult. For example, the kid you are about to save will murder ten kids, five of those kids would have become good people and five of them evil, one of the five good kids would save ten kids in his life and all of them would become good people.
Yes it is all about choices…
When either way you become a killer or the reason of killings the only sane thing to do is find the correct excuse for not acting at all. You might save because of fear of being accused by others or your conscience you might not save because of fear of being blamed for future killings by others or your conscience.
You should not save the kid in my opinion and you accept the burden on your conscience. You are also prepared to face everyone starting with yourself.
You might save in order to feel like a hero, do an admirable act (maybe win respect or the love of someone or the kid has rich parents and expect a reward) I do no appreciate this bad aspect of Good (been there done that) that miserably uses pretexts of goodness in the most precarious situations mainly directed by qualms and meticulous false excuses that lack beneficial outcomes. You might also save the kid because of selfrighteousness, extreme confidence in your good faith and hope that a “miracle will happen” and nobody will be killed later. Tsk tsk tsk…
When Good is presented with undeniable proof of a bad development, it should stand still and do nothing but use neutrality, again not because of fear. Fear is the worst advisor, a bad aspect of evil, but let’s not worry about this when we have to worry about the bad aspect of good (which is more frequent to encounter), as I say for years now, good people are responsible for anything bad happening to other good people, and that’s when you need something purely neutral to work as a catalyst otherwise it would spread, in many ways Evil without a bad aspect is much wiser than Good with a bad aspect. The latter is stupid and has great expectations, or rather because it has great expectations and evil with bad aspects is simply not worthy of discussion, it’s the lowest unawaremess, a bag of poisonous and unusable excrement/ you choose to be good, you choose to be evil but there are stricter rules for those who want to eliminate bad aspects, all aspects of pure evil must be Good. Evil must be humbled by this fact and good must be alert constantly and non-judgemental.
This explains a lot about why a God chooses neutrality more than often and does not intervene when asked by people who had no other option but ask for “God’s help”
The bottom line is, any person whether he believes in a God or not should understand that accusations (self blame, shame included) do not solve problems and miracles may create more.