Becoming
What is the relationship between doing and being? Without entering a deeply-philosophical discussion, the answer can be summarized into one simple word: becoming. If we continuously do bad things, regardless of how good we are, we become bad. Conversely, perhaps even the most fundamentally “evil” person deserves a chance to become good by doing good. And although this all might seem trivial and a waste of mental time/space, the issue of becoming can make a world of difference. Why? Because it explains the reason why, within the human mind: one becomes two and two become one. This might take a long time to prove, but we may as well begin now.
In order to get anywhere, we have to accept that there’s a difference between ‘doing’ good and ‘acting’ good, the latter of which implies acting/faking; that will be a problem for later and it will get us nowhere to discuss it now. Let us first establish one thing instead: becoming is an idea that connects two concepts (being and doing). Whatever one is at t = 0, and whatever one is one moment later (t = 1), can be affected by doing/becoming. If I am good but I do something bad, perhaps I become bad, but perhaps not. This is the root of the issue. People do and perhaps always will disagree on what it takes for someone to be or become something. Some will insist that a good person may be forced to do bad, but they are still good; others will contend that a good person doing bad is no different than a bad person. This, again, is the core problem, and the crux of this whole issue becomes: what is becoming? How much do we have to do something in order to become identical with it? How do we transition from not being to being by becoming? The entire root of human conflict is perhaps rooted in the fact that there are two ways to answer this question, and none of us use the same one at all times and for all issues. The two trees attached to this article show how this works, but let’s start from 0.
Some people focus on doing. When faced with a moral dilemma, we always have the option to do bad, do good, or do nothing. Obviously the interesting dilemma is always: knowing what is right/good and what is wrong/bad, but let’s assume that there is such objective division. The diagram only includes the option of doing “nothing” in the first line because it would be senseless to include it afterwards. We can only do “nothing” for so long until we are forced (internally or externally) to choose what is good and what is bad. Those who focus on doing will place a lot of emphasis on each decision and that is why each choice to do good or to do bad feels like a major step in that specific direction. This is shown by the color-coding in red for right/good and blue for wrong/left/bad.
Others stress the importance of being. If I consider myself a good person and I make the “right” decision, then my belief is reaffirmed. If I make another “good/right” decision, the feeling becomes even stronger (darker red). But notice what happens when I do something bad. I may still believe that I am a good person because, well, I was “forced” to do this bad thing, but one left/wrong doesn’t undo two rights. Perhaps the only way to see myself as “bad” is if I do good once, but then I commit two wrongs for whatever reason. The problem with this logic is that I may never see myself as bad because can simply moralize my next easy decision and do the “right” thing in order to reaffirm my belief that I am a good person. This has become the problem with humanity, but we’re only beginning to look at its surface.
