Woe of a mortal

(Since this is open to public scrutiny, I must make a disclaimer before I begin. I am unworthy to speak of the topic, neither am I an expert. Do pardon me for any misinterpretation on my part; differing opinions are welcomed. If you find this offensive, or feel that I've said something wrong, then please correct me by making a comment below so that we can all learn.)

You are sitting at a hawker centre with only have a few dollars in your wallet. A rugged old man approaches you and asks you for some money. He looks like he does not have a home to go to, or anything to eat for the day. You feel sympathy (or perhaps empathy if you had been in similar situation) and decide that you can part with some money for his sake. He walks away with a few dollars. After your meal, you walk past the void deck and sees the old man sitting at a corner with a few cigarette sticks (or a can of beer) in his hands.

Taking into account the likelihood that he had spent your money on vices, you may feel that you have been cheated, or you may experience a little bit of anger, or regret. Or perhaps you would just sigh and let it pass. The range of reactions are non-exhaustive, I am only able to think of those which I have personally experienced. But something which I read some time back helped me to come to terms with the frustrations of my work, and with life in general.

Mahatma Gandhi once wrote in an article, Ethical Religion, that a man is a master of his own morality, but not its results. A man who has committed an immoral act is deemed as guilty, even if his behaviour has no adverse impact on others. Likewise a man who has acted morally is still guiltless, even if few have followed him. So if a man offers his help to his neighbour because he perceives his neighbour is need, only to find out later that the neighbour had lied about his circumstances, is this man guiltless? Or would he be guilty if he had not offer help in the first place? But what if this man did not help because he were certain that the neighbour was lying? Or what if this man only helped because he is of a certain social status and did not want to lose his social standing? It seems that most laws, have clauses and exceptions, is it possible for us to cover all grounds when we only have a short span of time to decide the cause of action?

Or consider this situation: A woman sees that her neighbour's clothes on the clothesline had been blown away by the wind, she runs downstairs to pick it up. Unfortunately, on her way back, her neighbour sees her with the clothes and accuses her of attempting to steal. If the next time it happens, would it be more right for the woman to do the same as she did the last time, or to inform the neighbour and leave it to the neighbour to decide if her help is needed, or for her to ignore it altogether? Can we decide what is more right without full understanding of an her intentions?

Unlike arithmetic where the answers are definite, it seems that the answers to life's questions are often ambiguous. If you have experienced the futility of an action which you did in the hope of being helpful, I hope you won't be discouraged or disappointed. We often cannot control the outcome of our actions, but we can at least control our actions. So perhaps the best defence is to do whatever that is deemed as right based on the understanding of each scenario.

I shall end with the article by Gandhi, if you are a keen reader. I hope the article will have useful insights for you; and I hope there will always be mutual tolerance, and an agreement to disagree at times.