The ethical criterion of the present

There is a good ethical yardstick that I am currently trying to guide both in choosing and evaluating my own actions and in evaluating what other people (including politicians) are doing. "Does what people do lead to an increase in human suffering compared to what is already there" . The criterion is not absolutely absolute, but at least somehow determines the attitude and gives a human dimension to any global processes that depend on the will of people.

So someone starts talking about geopolitics, NATO and other special operations, and I ask myself the question: “what has been done - has it increased human pain and suffering, or reduced it?” And the logic “Now we are guaranteed to 100% increase the suffering of many people many times over, so that, somehow and EVER, it will not be so much for a smaller number of people” shows all its inferiority.

Opponents reproach me and others that I do not look beyond my nose, and do not understand that it was simply necessary to arrange a catastrophe in order to avoid a catastrophe later. And I, due to the inability due to “humanistic naivety” to embrace all these geopolitical alignments, short-sightedly see only “arrange a catastrophe” and consider only today's suffering of people, ignoring a brighter future. Gentlemen, we've been through this many times before. Mankind has gone through many, many times. You can't build something good out of pain . And even more so at its multiple increase. Cover yourself up to the top with rationalizations and justifications for evil.

PS And yes - this criterion works if a person and his pain mean at least something to us. If some overvalued ideas are more important, then yes, it does not work in any way.

PPS It is curious, by the way, that those who think in terms of "political blocs", "geopolitical alignments", "future of the world" are most often accused of "abstract humanism".